A prospective cohort study on the association of lean body mass estimated by mid‐upper arm muscle circumference with hypertension risk in Chinese residents. Issue 3 (16th February 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Liu, Yuyan; Sun, Guifan; Li, Yongfang
• Is Part Of: Journal of clinical hypertension. Volume 24:Issue 3(2022)
• Page Start: 329
• Page End: 338
• Publication Date: 2022-02-16
• Subjects: blood pressure -- hypertension -- lean body mass -- mid‐upper arm muscle circumference; Hypertension -- Periodicals; 616.132
• DOI: 10.1111/jch.14412
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1524-6175

Abstract

Abstract: The associations of lean body mass (LBM) with elevated blood pressure (BP) and hypertension were controversial, and the causalities have never been shown. Mid‐upper arm muscle circumference (MAMC), an easily obtained anthropometric measurement, could provide an accurate estimate for LBM. Therefore, a prospective cohort study in general Chinese residents aiming to find out the relationship between LBM estimated using MAMC and hypertension risk was performed. Eight thousand one hundred eighty‐five eligible participants were included in the baseline analysis, among whom 3442 were subsequently selected into cohort analysis. MAMC was calculated using mid‐upper arm circumference (MUAC) and triceps skinfold thickness (TST). Associations of MAMC with BP values and hypertension prevalence were estimated by linear and logistic regression models. Associations with hypertension incidence were estimated by COX regression models, hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were given. Nonlinear relationship between MAMC and hypertension risk was estimated using restricted cubic spline method. Standardized coefficients of MUAC and TST were compared to estimate their strengths of associations with hypertension. Baseline analysis showed that after adjusted for confounders, the increase of systolic BP per standard deviation (SD) of MAMC were 1.97 mmHg (95%CI: 1.46, 2.48) and 1.63 mmHg (95%CI: 1.10, 2.16) respectively in men and women, and the increases of diastolic BP per SD were 1.58 mmHg (95%CI: 1.23, 1.92) and 1.08 mmHg (95%CI: 0.74, 1.42). Additionally, the association of MAMC with the prevalence of hypertension were also found in both men and women (OR = 1.36, 95%CI: 1.26, 1.47 in men; OR = 1.33, 95%CI: 1.22, 1.44 in women). Cohort analysis showed that MAMC increased the risk of hypertension (HR = 1.10, 95%CI: 1.01, 1.19 for men; HR = 1.15, 95%CI: 1.06, 1.26 for women), and a trend of J‐shaped relationship was found. Additionally, the stronger associations of MUAC with both BP values and hypertension than that of TST were found in both baseline and cohort analyses. Findings in our study implied that we cannot neglect the capacity of LBM in predicting hypertension risk, and LBM estimates should be recommended in general health surveys or examinations.