Charles David Melton1, Ruiyan Luo1, Brett J Wong2, Ivan Spasojevic3, Lynne E Wagenknecht4, Ralph B D'Agostino4, Dora Il'yasova5. 1. School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta. 2. Department of Kinesiology & Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta. 3. Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. 4. Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC. 5. School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta; Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. Electronic address: dilyasova@gsu.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is strong biological plausibility for a causal role of reactive oxygen species in vascular pathology but no direct epidemiological evidence linking elevated reactive oxygen species levels to hypertension development. We examined cross-sectional and prospective associations between oxidative status (urinary F2-isoprostanes) and hypertension in the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study cohort (n = 831). METHODS: The cohort included non-Hispanic white, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic black individuals, with 252 (30%) having prevalent hypertension and 579 participants normotensive at baseline, 122 (21%) of whom developed hypertension during the 5-year follow-up. Four urinary F2-isoprostane isomers were quantified in baseline specimens using LC/MS-MS and were summarized as a composite index. Examined outcomes included hypertension status (yes/no), systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), pulse pressure (PP), and mean arterial pressure (MAP). RESULTS: Prevalent and incident hypertension were associated with greater age, Black race, impaired glucose tolerance, and greater BMI. F2-IsoP levels were lower among men and among non-Hispanic Blacks, were inversely associated with age, and were directly associated with BMI. No cross-sectional association was found between F2-isoprostanes and hypertension status (OR = 0.93, 0.77-0.12). Among the continuous measures of blood pressure only PP was associated with F2-isoprostanes at baseline (beta-coefficient = 0.99, 0.11-1.86). No prospective association was found between F2-isoprostanes and incident hypertension: OR = 0.98, 0.77-1.25. No prospective associations were found for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, and pulse pressure. Mean arterial pressure showed an inverse association (beta-coefficient = -0.16, -0.31 to -0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Elevated F2-isoprostane levels do not increase the risk of hypertension.
PURPOSE: There is strong biological plausibility for a causal role of reactive oxygen species in vascular pathology but no direct epidemiological evidence linking elevated reactive oxygen species levels to hypertension development. We examined cross-sectional and prospective associations between oxidative status (urinary F2-isoprostanes) and hypertension in the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study cohort (n = 831). METHODS: The cohort included non-Hispanic white, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic black individuals, with 252 (30%) having prevalent hypertension and 579 participants normotensive at baseline, 122 (21%) of whom developed hypertension during the 5-year follow-up. Four urinary F2-isoprostane isomers were quantified in baseline specimens using LC/MS-MS and were summarized as a composite index. Examined outcomes included hypertension status (yes/no), systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), pulse pressure (PP), and mean arterial pressure (MAP). RESULTS: Prevalent and incident hypertension were associated with greater age, Black race, impaired glucose tolerance, and greater BMI. F2-IsoP levels were lower among men and among non-Hispanic Blacks, were inversely associated with age, and were directly associated with BMI. No cross-sectional association was found between F2-isoprostanes and hypertension status (OR = 0.93, 0.77-0.12). Among the continuous measures of blood pressure only PP was associated with F2-isoprostanes at baseline (beta-coefficient = 0.99, 0.11-1.86). No prospective association was found between F2-isoprostanes and incident hypertension: OR = 0.98, 0.77-1.25. No prospective associations were found for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, and pulse pressure. Mean arterial pressure showed an inverse association (beta-coefficient = -0.16, -0.31 to -0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Elevated F2-isoprostane levels do not increase the risk of hypertension.
Authors: John F Keaney; Martin G Larson; Ramachandran S Vasan; Peter W F Wilson; Izabella Lipinska; Diane Corey; Joseph M Massaro; Patrice Sutherland; Joseph A Vita; Emelia J Benjamin Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2003-01-30 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Dora Il'yasova; Frances Wang; Ivan Spasojevic; Karel Base; Ralph B D'Agostino; Lynne E Wagenknecht Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: M B Kadiiska; B C Gladen; D D Baird; D Germolec; L B Graham; C E Parker; A Nyska; J T Wachsman; B N Ames; S Basu; N Brot; G A Fitzgerald; R A Floyd; M George; J W Heinecke; G E Hatch; K Hensley; J A Lawson; L J Marnett; J D Morrow; D M Murray; J Plastaras; L J Roberts; J Rokach; M K Shigenaga; R S Sohal; J Sun; R R Tice; D H Van Thiel; D Wellner; P B Walter; K B Tomer; R P Mason; J C Barrett Journal: Free Radic Biol Med Date: 2005-03-15 Impact factor: 7.376
Authors: Donald Lloyd-Jones; Robert J Adams; Todd M Brown; Mercedes Carnethon; Shifan Dai; Giovanni De Simone; T Bruce Ferguson; Earl Ford; Karen Furie; Cathleen Gillespie; Alan Go; Kurt Greenlund; Nancy Haase; Susan Hailpern; P Michael Ho; Virginia Howard; Brett Kissela; Steven Kittner; Daniel Lackland; Lynda Lisabeth; Ariane Marelli; Mary M McDermott; James Meigs; Dariush Mozaffarian; Michael Mussolino; Graham Nichol; Véronique L Roger; Wayne Rosamond; Ralph Sacco; Paul Sorlie; Randall Stafford; Thomas Thom; Sylvia Wasserthiel-Smoller; Nathan D Wong; Judith Wylie-Rosett Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-02-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ramón Rodrigo; Hernán Prat; Walter Passalacqua; Julia Araya; Cristián Guichard; Jean P Bächler Journal: Hypertens Res Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 3.872
Authors: Eva G Katz; June Stevens; Kimberly P Truesdale; Jianwen Cai; Kari E North; Lyn M Steffen Journal: Asia Pac J Clin Nutr Date: 2013 Impact factor: 1.662
Authors: Dora Il'yasova; Ivan Spasojevic; Karel Base; Haoyue Zhang; Frances Wang; Sarah P Young; David S Millington; Ralph B D'Agostino; Lynne E Wagenknecht Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-11-18 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Margaret A Adgent; Tebeb Gebretsadik; Cordelia R Elaiho; Ginger L Milne; Paul Moore; Terryl J Hartman; Whitney Cowell; Cecilia S Alcala; Nicole Bush; Robert Davis; Kaja Z LeWinn; Frances A Tylavsky; Rosalind J Wright; Kecia N Carroll Journal: Free Radic Biol Med Date: 2022-07-19 Impact factor: 8.101
Authors: Kathy K Griendling; Livia L Camargo; Francisco J Rios; Rhéure Alves-Lopes; Augusto C Montezano; Rhian M Touyz Journal: Circ Res Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 17.367