4.7 Article

Adiponectin level and left ventricular hypertrophy in Japanese men

期刊

HYPERTENSION
卷 49, 期 6, 页码 1448-1454

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.106.079509

关键词

adiponectin; left ventricular hypertrophy; electrocardiography; epidemiologic study; Japanese

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A recent study has demonstrated that adiponectin inhibited hypertrophic signaling in the myocardium of mice, implying that a decrease in the blood adiponectin level could cause cardiac muscle hypertrophy. We hypothesized that a relationship might exist between the serum adiponectin level and electrocardiographically diagnosed left ventricular hypertrophy ( ECG-LVH), and we examined this hypothesis by epidemiological study of 2839 Japanese male workers who were not taking medications for hypertension. ECG- LVH was defined as meeting Sokolow-Lyon voltage criteria and/or Cornell voltage-duration product. The subjects were categorized by tertiles of serum adiponectin level, and a multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted relating left ventricular hypertrophy to adiponectin tertiles adjusting for potential confounding factors. Prevalence of ECG- LVH in the studied sample was 16.7%. Adiponectin ranged from 1.0 to 5.0 mu g/mL in the lowest category and from 7.4 to 30.6 mu g/mL in the highest. Compared with subjects in the highest adiponectin category, those in the lowest one had a significantly higher prevalence of ECG- LVH independent of age, body mass index, and systolic blood pressure with an odds ratio of 1.50 and a 95% CI of 1.16 to 1.94. Further adjustment for high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglyceride, and insulin resistance did not change the association ( odds ratio: 1.68; 95% CI: 1.28 to 2.21; P < 0.001). Similar results were obtained when different criteria for ECG- LVH were used or when subjects were stratified by blood pressure or body mass index. Adiponectin concentration was inversely and independently associated with ECG- LVH in Japanese men.

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

4.7
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