Key result
A positive family history of hypertension was associated with greater cardiovascular reactivity to stress, with regression slopes significantly less than 1.0 and y-intercepts greater than zero.
Why the study?
Does a family history of hypertension affect cardiovascular reactivity to stress?
Meta-Analysis
Does a family history of hypertension affect cardiovascular reactivity to stress?
Family history of hypertension is associated with greater cardiovascular reactivity to stress, particularly in situations that typically elicit small responses in those without a family history.
Supports considering family history when assessing stress-related CV risk; extends meta-analytic evidence on this association.
A regression-based meta-analysis examined the degree to which the effects of a family history of hypertension on cardiovascular reactivity are moderated by the magnitude of cardiovascular responses elicited in challenge/task conditions. Mean change scores for negative family history groups were regressed on mean change scores for positive family history groups. The slopes of separate regression lines obtained for systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate were significantly less than 1.0 and the y-intercepts for these regression lines were significantly greater than zero. This pattern indicates that family history differences in cardiovascular reactivity to stress are greatest in situations that elicit the smallest baseline-stressor change scores in non-family-history groups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pierce et al. (2005) conducted a meta-analysis in Family history of hypertension. Positive family history of hypertension vs. Negative family history of hypertension was evaluated on Cardiovascular reactivity (systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate). A positive family history of hypertension was associated with greater cardiovascular reactivity to stress, with regression slopes significantly less than 1.0 and y-intercepts greater than zero.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: