4.6 Article

Prevalence and Systemic Risk Factors for Retinal Vein Occlusion in a General Japanese Population: The Hisayama Study

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 51, 期 6, 页码 3205-3209

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.09-4453

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. To examine the prevalence of retinal vein occlusion (RVO) and its systemic relevant factors in a general Japanese population aged 40 years or older. METHODS. In 1998, 1775 Hisayama residents consented to participate in the study. Each participant underwent a comprehensive examination that included ophthalmic testing. RVO was determined by grading color fundus photographs. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine risk factors for RVO. RESULTS. Of the 1775 subjects examined, 38 had RVO. The prevalence of RVO was 2.1% (2.0% for branch RVO and 0.2% for central RVO). After adjustment for age and sex, it was found that systolic and diastolic blood pressures, hypertension, and hematocrit were significantly associated with RVO. In multivariate analysis, age (per 10 years; odds ratio [OR], 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.08), hypertension (OR, 4.25; 95% CI, 1.82-9.94), and hematocrit (per 10%; OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.10-1.22) remained independently significant risk factors for RVO. Both high-normal blood pressure and hypertension were significantly associated with RVO. Furthermore, compared with normotensive subjects without high hematocrit, the likelihood of RVO was markedly high in subjects having both high blood pressure and high hematocrit (age-and sex-adjusted OR, 36.0; 95% CI, 4.43-292). CONCLUSIONS. The findings suggest that the prevalence of RVO is higher in the Japanese than in other Asians or Caucasians and that older age, higher hematocrit, and both hypertension and high-normal blood pressure are significant risk factors for RVO in the Japanese. (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010; 51: 3205-3209) DOI:10.1167/iovs.09-4453

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