4.6 Article

Longitudinal trends in major cardiovascular risk factors in the Czech population between 1985 and 2007/8. Czech MONICA and Czech post-MONICA

期刊

ATHEROSCLEROSIS
卷 211, 期 2, 页码 676-681

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2010.04.007

关键词

Cardiovascular mortality; BMI; Obesity; Smoking; Blood pressure; Hypertension; Lipids

资金

  1. Internal Grant Agency of the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic [NR/9389-3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim of our study was to assess longitudinal trends in major CV risk factors in a representative population sample of the Czech Republic. Methods: Three cross-sectional surveys of CV risk factors were conducted within the WHO MONICA project in six Czech districts in 1985 (n = 2570), 1988 (n = 2768), and 1992 (n = 2343). In 1997/98, 2000/01, and 2007/08, another three screenings for CV risk factors (a 1% random sample, aged 25-64, mean age 45 years) were conducted in the six original districts (n = 1990; 2055; and 2246, respectively). Results: Over a period of 22/23 years, there was a significant decrease in the prevalence of smoking in males (from 45.0 to 30.5%; p < 0.001) and no change in smoking habits in females. BMI increased in males and did not change in females. Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure decreased significantly in both genders, while the prevalence of hypertension declined only in females. Awareness of hypertension also rose as did the proportion of individuals treated by antihypertensive drugs in both genders. Hypertension control improved in either gender. A remarkable drop in total cholesterol was seen in both sexes (males: from 6.21 +/- 1.29 to 5.29 +/- 1.10 mmol/L; p < 0.001; females: from 6.18 +/- 1.26 to 5.30 +/- 1.06 mmol/L; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The striking improvement in CV risk factors documented between 1985 and 2007/8 most likely contributed to the decrease in CV mortality in the Czech Republic. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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