Childhood maltreatment and adult blood pressure-based outcomes: age- and sex-specific associations in the German National Cohort (NAKO)

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background Childhood maltreatment (CM) is associated with adult cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure (BP), key markers of CVD risk, exhibit age- and sex-dependent variability, which was insufficiently accounted for in previous studies on the CM-BP relationship. This study therefore aimed to assess age- and sex-specific associations between CM and adult BP-based outcomes and hypertension using cross-sectional data from the population based German National Cohort (NAKO). Methods Complete data were available for 150,983 participants (49.3% female), who took part in the baseline assessment between 2014 and 2019. CM was assessed via the Childhood Trauma Screener (CTS). Resting BP was assessed using a standardized procedure. Hypertension was defined as either SBP ≥ 140 mmHg or DBP ≥ 90 mmHg or intake of antihypertensive medication. Age- and sex-stratified multivariable regression models estimated age- and sex-specific associations between CM and BP-based markers and sex-stratified logistic regression models were calculated for hypertension as the outcome. Results A pattern of inverse associations between CTS sum score (CTS SUM ) and BP markers emerged. Compared to their non-exposed counterparts, females (OR = 0.87, 95%-CI: 0.80; 0.94) but not males (OR = 1.01, 95%-CI: 0.91; 1.13) with high cumulative CM exposure (i.e., ≥ 3 CM categories) had lower odds of hypertension. Age-dependent inverse associations between CTS SUM and BP markers revealed sex-specific patterns. The age- and sex-dependent inverse associations of CM with BP markers were more consistent for the abuse vs. neglect subscales. Conclusions The association between CM and BP revealed age- and sex-dependent patterns, highlighting the complexity of physical consequences in adulthood associated with CM.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.