| Literature DB >> 20805984 |
Buris Christiansen1, Natalia Bellostas Muguerza, Atheline Major Petersen, Britt Kveiborg, Christian Rask Madsen, Hermann Thomas, Nikolaj Ihlemann, Jens Christian Sørensen, Lars Køber, Hilmer Sørensen, Christian Torp-Pedersen, Helena Domínguez.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Ingestion of glucosinolates has previously been reported to improve endothelial function in spontaneously hypertensive rats, possibly because of an increase in NO availability in the endothelium due to an attenuation of oxidative stress; in our study we tried to see if this also would be the case in humans suffering from essential hypertension.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20805984 PMCID: PMC2929197 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012461
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
In and exclusion criteria for the participants.
|
|
| • Hypertension, defined as a diastolic blood pressure of above 90 mm Hg or a systolic blood pressure of more than 140 mm Hg or in medical treatment for hypertension. |
|
|
| • Impaired glucose tolerance, measured by an oral glucose tolerance test or diabetes according to internationally recognized criteria |
| • Known hypertension due to renal artery stenosis |
| • Hypercholesterolemia defined as a total cholesterol of more than 5 mM or statin treatment, |
| • Smokers |
| • Patients receiving vitamin K-antagonists (coumarine, marcoumar) |
| • Women of childbearing age with no safe method of contraception |
| • Pregnant or breastfeeding women |
| • Patients under the age of 18 at inclusion in the study |
Baseline characteristics of the control and interventional group.
| Control | Sd | Range | Intervention | SD | Range | p | |
| Male | 5 | n/a | n/a | 11 | n/a | 0.10 | |
| Female | 15 | n/a | n/a | 10 | n/a | 0.50 | |
| Age | 54 | 10 | 32–67 | 58 | 9 | 38–77 | 0.23 |
| Cigarettes(Packet years) | 6.9 | 17 | 0–70 | 6 | 10.4 | 0–41 | 0.84 |
| BMI | 26.2 | 3.2 | 22–33.7 | 29.1 | 6.6 | 21–51 | 0.08 |
| Systolic mean | 158.6 | 20.4 | 132–215 | 158.5 | 20.9 | 121–196 | 0.98 |
| Diastolic mean | 98 | 7.8 | 88–115 | 96 | 10.4 | 80–115 | 0.50 |
| Plasma Glucose | 5.3 | 0.4 | 4.5–5.9 | 5.4 | 0.4 | 4.5–6.4 | 0.40 |
| total Cholesterol | 5 | 0.7 | 3.6–7.1 | 5.1 | 1 | 3.6–7.6 | 0.55 |
| HDL | 1.7 | 0.5 | .9–2.8 | 1.7 | 0.6 | 1.1–3.4 | 0.85 |
| LDL | 2.9 | 1 | 2–4.2 | 3 | 0.8 | 1.7–5.1 | 0.32 |
| Triglycerides | 1.09 | 0.7 | 0.43–3.59 | 1.03 | 0.6 | 0.38–2.5 | 0.71 |
| Antihypertensive drugs | users | users | p | ||||
| C03 Diuretics | 4 | n/a | n/a | 5 | n/a | n/a | 0.77 |
| C07 β-Blockers | 2 | n/a | n/a | 2 | n/a | n/a | 0.96 |
| C08 Calciumantagonists | 7 | n/a | n/a | 3 | n/a | n/a | 0.12 |
| C09 ACE inhibitors or ATII antagonists | 8 | n/a | n/a | 12 | n/a | n/a | 0.27 |
Since all participants were non smokers at the time of the investigation, packet-years refers to years of smoking prior to the study. Antihypertensive drugs are grouped by ATC.
Figure 1Consort 2001 flow diagram.
Development of FMD in percent during the study.
| Week | 0 | 2 | 4 | Change 0–4 | |
| Intervention | Mean | 4.07 | 4.12 | 5.80 | 1.78 |
| CI | 2.75 to 5.39 | 2.93 to 5.31 | 3.19 to 8.41 | −0.95 to 4.41 | |
| Control | Mean | 4.08 | 3.60 | 3.56 | −0.52 |
| CI | 2.70 to 5.46 | 2.55 to 4.64 | 2.74 to 4.38 | −1.99 to 0.94 | |
| Difference | Mean | −0.01 | 0.53 | 2.24 | 2.25 |
| CI | −1.88 to 1.84 | −1.01 to 2.06 | −0.46 to 4.98 | −0.73 to 5.23 |
Mean and confidence interval (2,5–97,5%) none of the differences were significant on the 0.05 level using Students Test.
Figure 2Box plot of the FMD values for weeks 0, 2 and 4 during the study for the Control and Interventional group.
Figure 3Histogram of the differences in FMD between week 4 and week 0 in the interventional group.
Mean, confidence intervals and p-values for selected blood samples, p-values calculated using Students test.
| Total Cholesterol | Intervention | Control | |||||
| Weeks | mean | CI 2.5 | CI 97.5 | mean | CI 2.5 | CI 97.5 | p-value |
| 0 | 5.08 | 4.62 | 5.53 | 4.95 | 4.65 | 5.24 | 0.62 |
| 2 | 5.07 | 4.57 | 5.57 | 4.88 | 4.62 | 5.14 | 0.49 |
| 4 | 5.04 | 4.55 | 5.53 | 5.06 | 4.76 | 5.36 | 0.94 |
| HDL | |||||||
| Weeks | mean | CI 2.5 | CI 97.5 | mean | CI 2.5 | CI 97.5 | p-value |
| 0 | 1.73 | 1.49 | 1.97 | 1.81 | 1.54 | 2.07 | 0.67 |
| 2 | 1.67 | 1.40 | 1.94 | 1.73 | 1.50 | 1.96 | 0.72 |
| 4 | 1.65 | 1.40 | 1.90 | 1.78 | 1.54 | 2.01 | 0.45 |
| LDL | |||||||
| Weeks | mean | CI 2.5 | CI 97.5 | mean | CI 2.5 | CI 97.5 | p-value |
| 0 | 2.76 | 2.29 | 3.22 | 2.78 | 2.51 | 3.04 | 0.94 |
| 2 | 2.72 | 2.26 | 3.19 | 2.72 | 2.48 | 2.95 | 0.98 |
| 4 | 2.89 | 2.49 | 3.28 | 2.80 | 2.53 | 3.06 | 0.70 |
| Haematochrite | |||||||
| Week | mean | CI 2.5 | CI 97.5 | mean | CI 2.5 | CI 97.5 | p-value |
| 0 | 0.39 | 0.34 | 0.43 | 0.58 | 0.20 | 0.96 | 0.31 |
| 2 | 0.41 | 0.39 | 0.42 | 0.40 | 0.39 | 0.41 | 0.17 |
| 4 | 0.40 | 0.39 | 0.42 | 0.39 | 0.38 | 0.40 | 0.24 |
Development of Systolic Blood Pressure during the study.
| 0 | 2 | 4 | Change 0–4 | ||
| Intervention | Mean | 152.30 | 149.21 | 145.15 | −7.80 |
| CI | 143.10 to 161.50 | 141.45 to 156.97 | 136.57 to 153.73 | −19.13 to 3.53 | |
| Control | Mean | 145.85 | 148.75 | 144.50 | −0.70 |
| CI | 136.93 to 154.77 | 139.17 to 158.33 | 137.58 to 151.42 | −14.44 to 13.04 | |
| Difference | Mean | 6.45 | 0.46 | 0.65 | −5.80 |
| CI | −5.94 to 18.84 | −11.48 to 12.40 | −11.33 to 10.03 | −24.34 to 10.14 |
Mean and confidence interval (2,5–97,5%) none of the differences were significant on the 0.05 level using Students Test.
Development of Diastolic Blood Pressure during the study.
| 0 | 2 | 4 | Change 0–4 | ||
| Intervention | Mean | 89.70 | 90.58 | 88.65 | −1.05 |
| CI | 83.73 to 95.66 | 84.88 to 96.28 | 84.04 to 93.26 | −8.18 to 6.08 | |
| Control | Mean | 91.80 | 89.55 | 88.75 | −3.05 |
| CI | 86.53 to 97.07 | 85.32 to 93.78 | 84.84 to 92.66 | −9.12 to 3.02 | |
| Difference | Mean | −2.10 | 1.03 | −0.10 | 2.00 |
| CI | −9.80 to 5.60 | −5.80 to 7.91 | −5.95 to 5.75 | −7.06 to 11.06 |
Mean and confidence interval (2,5–97,5%) none of the differences were significant on the 0.05 level using Students Test.
Concentration of glucosinolates in the sprouts prior to and after the study.
| Prior to study | After study | |||||
| Mean (μmol/g) | D | proportion | Mean (µmol/g) | SD | proportion | |
| Glucoraphanin | 30.3 | 4.0 | 75.0% | 25.9 | 8.5 | 53.4% |
| Total | 40.4 | 5.8 | 100.0% | 48.5 | 14.2 | 100.0% |
All concentrations are given as µmol/g with the proportion signifying how large a proportion of the glucosinolate content consisted of Glucoraphanin.