4.3 Article

Risk profile in hypertension genesis: A five-year follow-up study

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
卷 19, 期 8, 页码 775-780

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjhyper.2005.07.019

关键词

stress; job strain; cluster; epidemiology; baroreflex; hypertension

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Pathogenesis of primary hypertension remains unclear, because many heterogeneous factors (diet, physiologic, and psychological factors) are simultaneously involved. We have conducted an original analysis to study the influence of the combination of these factors on BP evolution. Methods: Seven homogeneous clusters were constituted from 213 healthy normotensive subjects taking into account 10 variables. Those variables used to cluster homogeneous risk profiles are usually considered as potential risk factors for hypertension: age, body mass index, alcohol consumption, sodium/potassium urinary ratio, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and heart rate response to mental stress, baroreflex sensitivity (BRS), job demand, job latitude, and behavioral pattern (personality score). Five-year BP evolution (Delta SBP or Delta diastolic BP [DBP]) was compared between risk profiles. Results: Four clusters of subjects representing about 50% of the population had a significantly higher 5-year Delta SBP (>= 5 mm Hg) compared to the 5-year Delta SBP of the two clusters in which SBP did not increase. These four clusters had a low BRS. Two profiles that group six unfavorable risk factors had the most detrimental 5-year Delta SBP. Interestingly, perceived high job demand in a cluster of younger subjects with a high personality score and a low BRS had also a detrimental SBP evolution. Conclusions: The major interest of this study is to highlight that hypertension development is not univocal between subjects and that different combinations of factors could explain differential BP evolution in groups of subjects sharing the same risk profile. A lower BRS was a consistent predictor for detrimental 5-year BP evolution.

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