4.3 Article

Relationship Between Self-Reported Sleep Duration and Changes in Circadian Blood Pressure

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
卷 22, 期 11, 页码 1205-1211

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1038/ajh.2009.165

关键词

-

资金

  1. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario [T-6327]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND Abnormalities in sleep duration and circadian blood pressure (BP) rhythm are both independently associated with increased risk of death and cardiovascular disease. The relationship, however, between these two entities remains unclear. This study was undertaken to determine whether abnormal sleep duration is associated with nondipping status and elevated morning surge. METHODS In a cross-sectional study, we assessed the relationship between self-reported sleep duration and circadian BP profiles from 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) in 108 normotensive and 417 hypertensive subjects, independent of relevant sociodemographic, anthropometric, and medical factors. RESULTS On average, subjects reported sleeping 6.5 +/- 1.7 h with 18.5% sleeping <= 5 h and 7.6%, <= 9 h. There were 199 (37.9%) nondippers in our cohort and the mean morning surge was 18.7 +/- 1.7 mm Hg. The adjusted odds ratio for no ndipping (<10% nocturnal systolic BP fall) associated with a 1-h decrement in sleep duration was 1.12 (P = 0.04) and with age per 5-year increment, 1.15 (P = 0.0003). The adjusted odds ratio for an elevated morning surge (>= 18.0 mm Hg) associated with a 1-h increment in sleep duration was 1.13 (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS Our study indicates that a sleep deficit is associated with nondipping and a decreased morning surge, whereas a sleep surfeit is associated with less nondipping and an increased morning surge. These findings provide a possible link for the heightened risk of cardiovascular disease associated with disturbances in circadian BP rhythm and the extremes of sleep quantity. Am J Hypertens 2009;22:1205-1211 (C) 2009 American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据