3.8 Article

Relationship of 30-year changes in obesity to sleep-disordered breathing in the Western Collaborative Group Study

期刊

OBESITY RESEARCH
卷 8, 期 9, 页码 632-637

出版社

NORTH AMER ASSOC STUDY OBESITY
DOI: 10.1038/oby.2000.81

关键词

aging; sleep-disordered breathing; central obesity

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL-59659] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [AG-09341] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Obesity is an important etiologic factor in sleep-disordered breathing (SDB), but the extent to which changes in obesity across adult life contribute independently to SDB in old age has not been studied. In this study, we examined the association between changes in obesity from midlife to late adulthood and overnight recording of respiration during sleep. Research Methods and Procedures: Subjects in this study are from the Western Collaborative Group Study, a longitudinal cardiovascular epidemiological study that began in 1960 through 1961. Overnight sleep recordings were obtained from 281 male participants in the 1995 through 1996 follow-up of the Western Collaborative Group Study. Subjects were 75 to 91 years old when assessed for SDB as indexed by the respiratory disturbance index and an oxygen desaturation index (O2DI). Long-term changes in anthropometrics were evaluated and examined in relation to SDB severity. Results: Over the 30 years of follow-up, body mass index and waist circumference increased significantly for this sample and were associated with SDB severity as indexed by respiratory disturbance index and O-2,DI. Waist circumference at baseline and gain in waist circumference over the 30 years of follow-up (both p = 0.01) were significantly and independently associated with SDB severity as assessed by O2DI. However, percentage of variance as accounted for by waist circumference was modest. Discussion: This study supports the hypothesis that gain in waist circumference over adult life is significantly associated with SDB severity in older 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

3.8
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