4.3 Article

Longitudinal relationships between cardiovascular events, risk factors, and time-dependent sleep duration

期刊

CARDIOLOGY JOURNAL
卷 25, 期 2, 页码 229-235

出版社

VIA MEDICA
DOI: 10.5603/CJ.a2017.0088

关键词

sleep duration; longitudinal study; cardiovascular events; cardiovascular risk factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Although many studies have evaluated the relationships between sleep duration and cardiovascular (CV) events/risk factors, longitudinal associations with time-dependent sleep duration have not been adequately assessed. Methods: A retrospective, longitudinal study was conducted involving individuals aged 20 years or older that received annual health check-ups at St. Luke's International Hospital from 2005 to 2010. Data collection included self-reported demographic, clinical and health habit information (including sleep duration; < 6, 6-7, 7-8, >= 8 h), baseline examinations, and laboratory measures for each year We conducted mixed effects analyses to examine the associations between non-fatal CV events, risk factors, and time-dependent sleep duration longitudinally. Results: Of the total of 31,830 participants enrolled, 70.1% of participants changed their sleep duration, and 365 participants experienced CV events during follow-up periods. Compared to those reporting 7-8 h of sleep, those reporting less than 6 h of sleep were significantly more likely to experience non-fatal CV events (odds ratio [OR] 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-3.07; p = 0.04), but other groups were not (OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.70-1.77; p = 0.64 for 6-7 h and OR 1.22; 95% CI 0.68-2.23; p = 0.50 for >= 8 h). The shortest sleep duration was associated with a higher likelihood of obesity/overweight status (OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.32-1.69; p < 0.01). Conclusions: Individuals reporting less than 6 h of sleep were significantly more likely to have nonfatal CV events than those reporting 7-8 h of sleep. For the risk factors, short sleep duration was associated with obesity/overweight status.

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