4.3 Article

Racial (black-white) divergence in the association between adiponectin and arterial stiffness in asymptomatic young adults: The Bogalusa Heart Study

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
卷 21, 期 5, 页码 553-557

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ajh.2008.14

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [AG16592] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND Adiponectin, an adipocytokine with beneficial biological functions relevant to cardiovascular (CV) diseases, and arterial stiffness, an indicator of vascular function, are considered to be important correlates of CV disease risk. Although racial (black-white) divergences in adiponectin and arterial stiffness are known, information is scant regarding the association between these two parameters among asymptomatic young adults within each race. METHODS As part of the Bogalusa Heart Study, arterial stiffness was examined noninvasively in terms of aorta-femoral pulse wave velocity (af-PWV) in 991 black and white nondiabetic subjects (72% white, 43% male) aged 24-44 years. RESULTS In a multivariate regression model by race that included adiponectin, age, sex, waist circumference, mean arterial pressure, heart rate, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, low- and high-density lipoprotein cholesterols, triglycerides, and cigarette smoking, the significant predictors of af-PWV, in the order of entry, were: mean arterial pressure, age, smoking, and heart rate in both races, followed by adiponectin (inverse relation) in blacks. Further, after adjusting for mean arterial pressure, age, smoking, and heart rate, the odds ratio of finding excess af-PWV (top decile vs. the rest) in individuals with low adiponectin levels (bottom quartile vs. the rest) was significantly higher in blacks (OR: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.1 -5.5), but not in whites (OR: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.5-1.9). CONCLUSIONS These findings suggest that the status of hypoadiponectinemia is an independent correlate of excess arterial stiffness in asymptomatic young black adults.

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