4.7 Article

Components of height and blood pressure in childhood

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 43, 期 1, 页码 149-159

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyt248

关键词

Leg length; trunk length; blood pressure; child; longitudinal studies

资金

  1. US National Institutes of Health [HD 34568, HL 64925, HL 68041, HL 75504]
  2. Medical Research Council [MC_UU_12015/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. MRC [MC_UU_12015/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methods We obtained five measures of SBP and DBP at the early childhood visit (N = 1153, follow-up rate = 54%) and at the mid-childhood visit (N = 1086, follow-up rate = 51%) respectively, in Project Viva, a US cohort study. We measured total height and sitting height (a measure of trunk length that includes head and neck) and calculated leg length as the difference between the two. Using mixed models, we adjusted the cross-sectional analyses for leg length when trunk length was the exposure of interest, and vice versa. We also adjusted for maternal race/ethnicity, child age, sex, overall adiposity and BP measurement conditions. Results At the mid-childhood visit, total height was positively associated with SBP [0.34 (0.24; 0.45) mmHg/cm] but not with DBP [0.07 (-0.003; 0.15)]. In models examining trunk and leg length separately, each was positively associated with SBP [0.72 (0.52; 0.92) and 0.33 (0.16; 0.49) respectively]. In a fully adjusted model with both leg and trunk length, only trunk length remained associated with BP. For a given leg length, a 1-cm increment in trunk length was associated with a 0.63-mmHg (0.42; 0.83) higher SBP and a 0.17-mmHg (0.02; 0.31) higher DBP. For a given trunk length, however, the associations of leg length with SBP [0.13 (-0.03; 0.30)] and with DBP [0.002 (-0.11; 0.12)] were null. These patterns were similar at the early childhood visit. Conclusions Children with greater trunk lengths have higher BPs, perhaps because of the additional pressure needed to overcome gravity to perfuse the brain.

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

4.7
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