4.7 Article

Headache, migraine and cardiovascular risk factors: The HUNT study

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 18, 期 3, 页码 504-511

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2010.03199.x

关键词

cardiovascular disease; cross-sectional study; headache; migraine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Migraine with aura (MA) has been found to be a risk factor for cardiovascular disease including ischaemic stroke and myocardial infarction. Studies have also reported a higher prevalence of unfavourable cardiovascular risk factors amongst migraineurs, but results have been conflicting as to whether this is restricted to MA or also holds true for migraine without aura (MO). This study aims to examine the relation between headache and cardiovascular risk factors in a large cross-sectional population-based study. Methods: A total of 48 713 subjects (age >= 20 years) completed a headache questionnaire and were classified according to the headache status in the Nord-Trondelag Health Study in Norway 1995-1997 (HUNT 2). Framingham 10-year risk for myocardial infarction and coronary death could be calculated for 44 098 (90.5%) of these. Parameters measured were blood pressure, body mass index, serum total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Results: Compared to controls, Framingham risk score was elevated in non-migraine headache sufferers (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.10-1.26), migraineurs without aura (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04-1.32) and most pronounced amongst migraineurs with aura (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.21-1.95). Framingham risk score consistently increased with headache frequency. For non-migrainous headache and MO, the increased risk was accounted for by the lifestyle factors smoking, high BMI and low physical activity, whilst such factors did not explain the elevated risk associated with MA. Conclusions: Both MA, MO and non-migrainous headache are associated with an unfavourable cardiovascular risk profile, but different mechanisms seem to underlie the elevated risk in MA than in the other headache types.

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