| Literature DB >> 30994713 |
Jia Wang1, Zhongxin Hong1, Nan Wang1, Li Wu1, Bingjie Ding1, Zhiwen Ge1, Yanxia Bi1, Wei Li1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to explore the effects of diet on the inflammatory response in middle-aged and elderly people with hypertension.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30994713 PMCID: PMC6445157 DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2019/e890
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) ISSN: 1807-5932 Impact factor: 2.365
General characteristics of the patients in the two groups.
| Group | N | Sex (Male/Female) | Age (y) | Smoking@ (Y/N) | Alcohol& (Y/N) | Exercise# (h/d) | Sleep (h/d) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IG | 10 | 5/5 | 57.7±8.2 | 5/5 | 5/5 | 0.9±0.3 | 7.4±2.1 |
| CG | 12 | 6/6 | 60.8±7.8 | 6/6 | 6/6 | 1.2±0.4 | 7.1±1.4 |
| -* | -0.420 | -* | -* | -0.519 | 0.861 | ||
| 1.000 | 0.701 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.560 | 0.401 |
Note: IG, intervention group; CG, control group; *Fisher's exact probability method; &daily consumption of alcohol in any form; #time spent exercising, including heavy physical labour and physical exercise.
Comparison of blood pressure between the two groups.
| SBP | DBP | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group | N | before | after | before | after | ||||
| IG | 10 | 140±15 | 128±9 | 2.998 | 81±15 | 77±10 | 1.989 | 0.069 | |
| CG | 12 | 142±16 | 145±14 | -0.812 | 0.425 | 83±21 | 83±8 | 0.269 | 0.790 |
| - | -0.504 | -3.014 | - | - | -0.696 | -1.859 | - | - | |
| - | 0.602 | 0.007 | - | - | 0.492 | 0.089 | - | - | |
Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation (mmHg).
Note: SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; before, the data before the experiment; after, the data after the 6-week experiment; IG, intervention group; CG, control group.
Figure 1Comparison of blood pressure between the two groups. SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; Intervene, intervention group; Control, control group; T0, the data before the experiment; T1, the data after the experiment.
Comparison of inflammatory markers between the two groups.
| NF-κB (ng/L) | sICAM-1 (µg/L) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group | N | T0 | T1 | T0 | T1 | ||||
| IG | 10 | 248.2±89.7 | 161.7±87.3 | 2.218 | 138.5±79.1 | 102.7±54.8 | 2.201 | ||
| CG | 12 | 235.4±91.4 | 201.5±79.4 | 0.861 | 0.239 | 132.6±69.5 | 128.8±64.9 | 0.997 | 0.327 |
| - | 0.284 | -1.521 | - | - | 0.197 | -2.171 | - | - | |
| - | 0.724 | 0.158 | - | - | 0.892 | 0.295 | - | - | |
Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation.
Figure 2Comparison of inflammatory markers between the two groups. Intervene, intervention group; Control, control group; T0, the data before the experiment; T1, the data after the experiment.
Comparison of total energy intake and proportions of different nutrients between the two groups before and after the study.
| Group | N | Energy (kcal) | Carbohydrates (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T0 | T1 | T0 | T1 | ||||||
| IG | 10 | 2033.7±437.5 | 2196.5±211.5 | -1.500 | 0.149 | 56.9±10.8 | 49.2±8.1 | 1.980 | 0.075 |
| CG | 12 | 2098.5±427.7 | 1549.2±357.3 | 3.138 | 57.1±11.2 | 56.5±9.8 | 0.658 | 0.514 | |
| - | -0.274 | 4.297 | - | - | -0.326 | -1.761 | - | - | |
| - | 0.759 | - | - | 0.787 | 0.092 | - | - | ||
Note: IG, intervention group; CG, control group; T0, the data before the experiment; T1, the data after the experiment; carbohydrate (%), the proportion of total energy from carbohydrates; protein (%), the proportion of total energy from protein; fat (%), the proportion of total energy from fats.
Figure 3Comparison of total energy intake and proportions of different nutrients between the two groups before and after the study. Intervene, intervention group; Control, control group; T0, the data before the experiment; T1, the data after the experiment.