4.8 Article

Endothelial function in healthy 11-year-old children after dietary intervention with onset in infancy -: The special Turku coronary risk factor intervention project for children (STRIP)

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 112, 期 24, 页码 3786-3794

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.583195

关键词

endothelium; pediatrics; atherosclerosis; cholesterol; diet

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Early childhood introduction of nutritional habits aimed at atherosclerosis prevention reduces children's serum total cholesterol concentration, but its effect on vascular endothelial function is unknown. Methods and Results-Between 1990 and 1992, we randomized healthy 7-month-old infants (n=1062) to intervention (low-saturated-fat diet) and control (unrestricted diet) groups. At the age of 11 years, endothelium-dependent (flow-mediated) and endothelium-independent (nitrate-mediated) vasodilatory responses of the brachial artery were measured with high-resolution ultrasound in 179 intervention and 190 control children. The effect of intervention on endothelial function was significant in boys (P=0.0034) but not in girls (P=0.69). The maximum endothelium-dependent dilation response (mean +/- SD) was 9.62 +/- 3.53% and 8.36 +/- 3.85% in intervention boys and control boys and 8.84 +/- 4.00% and 8.44 +/- 3.60% in intervention girls and control girls, respectively. Intervention had no effect on nitrate-mediated dilation. The difference in endothelial function in boys remained significant after adjustment for current serum total or LDL cholesterol but became nonsignificant after adjustment for mean cholesterol measured under 3 years of age (adjusted means: 9.46% [CI 8.68% to 10.24%] versus 8.54% [CI 7.75% to 9.32%], P=0.11). Conclusions-A low-saturated-fat diet introduced in infancy and maintained during the first decade of life is associated with enhanced endothelial function in boys. The effect is explained in part by the diet-induced reduction in serum cholesterol concentration.

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

4.8
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