Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease (Nov 2018)

Low‐Level Cumulative Lead and Resistant Hypertension: A Prospective Study of Men Participating in the Veterans Affairs Normative Aging Study

  • Alexander R. Zheutlin,
  • Howard Hu,
  • Marc G. Weisskopf,
  • David Sparrow,
  • Pantel S. Vokonas,
  • Sung Kyun Park

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.118.010014
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 7, no. 21

Abstract

Read online

Background Bone lead offers a better method over blood lead measurement to discern long‐term lead exposure and accumulation. We examined the risk of resistant hypertension based on bone lead levels in a prospective cohort study of NAS (Normative Aging Study). Methods and Results Participants had clinic data on hypertension (systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and antihypertension medication), lead (blood, bone‐patella, bone‐tibia), and demographic and confounding variables. Cases of resistant hypertension were identified by meeting criteria for: (1) inadequate systolic blood pressure (>140 mm Hg) or diastolic blood pressure (>90 mm Hg) while taking 3 medications or (2) requiring >4 medications for blood pressure control. A modified Poisson regression was used for model analysis. Of the 475 participants, 97 cases of resistant hypertension (20.4%) were identified. Among the cases of resistant hypertension, the median tibia and patella lead levels were 20 μg/g and 25 μg/g, respectively, while median tibia and patella lead levels were 20 μg/g and 27.5 μg/g, respectively, in participants without resistant hypertension. Tibia lead demonstrated a significant association with resistant hypertension (relative risk, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.01–1.41 [P=0.04]) per interquartile range increase in tibia lead (13–28.5 μg/g). Patella lead was not associated with resistant hypertension (relative risk, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.92–1.31 [P=0.31]) per interquartile range increase in patella lead (18–40 μg/g). Blood lead levels were not significantly associated with resistant hypertension (relative risk, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.88–1.40 [P=0.38]). Conclusions Tibia lead represents a novel risk factor for resistant hypertension. Our study demonstrates an increased association between tibia lead and resistant hypertension status, with an increased risk of 19% per 1 interquartile range increase in tibia lead.

Keywords