4.1 Article

Prevalence of Comorbidity among People with Hypertension: The Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007-2013

期刊

KOREAN CIRCULATION JOURNAL
卷 46, 期 5, 页码 672-680

出版社

KOREAN SOC CARDIOLOGY
DOI: 10.4070/kcj.2016.46.5.672

关键词

Hypertension; Chronic disease; Epidemiology; Prevalence; Korea

资金

  1. Korean Health Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health and Welfar, Republic of Korea [HI13C0715]
  2. Korea Health Promotion Institute [HI13C0715010016] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Objectives: Joint National Committee guidelines attempt to vary treatment recommendations for patients based on considerations of their comorbidities. The aim of the present study is to estimate the age-standardized prevalence of common comorbidities among Korean hypertension patients. Subjects and Methods: We analyzed the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2007 to 2013. Among the 58423 participants, 30092 adults, aged >= 30 yrs who completed a health examination and interview survey, were selected. The survey procedures were used to estimate weighted prevalence and odds ratios for 8 comorbidities, including obesity, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and thyroid disease. Results: Most chronic conditions were more prevalent in adults with hypertension than in those without hypertension. Common comorbidities were obesity (60.1%), dyslipidemia (57.6%), and impaired fasting glucose (45.1%). Hypertensive patients with two or more comorbid diseases were 42.2% and those with three or more diseases were 17.7%. The age- and sex-specific prevalence of three or more comorbid diseases among male hypertension patients was significantly higher than those patients in the 30-59 (p<0.05) age group. Conclusion: Comorbidity is highly prevalent in Korean patients with hypertension.

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

4.1
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