Elderly Algerian women lack the typical female advantage of lower arterial stiffness seen in European populations, likely due to a higher burden of cardiovascular risk factors.
May challenge assumptions of female vascular protection across ethnicities; leaves open mechanisms of ethnic differences in arterial stiffness.
OBJECTIVES: Several studies have shown lower carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) levels in women compared to men, a difference that could partially explain the increased longevity in women. However, these studies have been performed in industrial countries while few data are available in emerging populations. We studied arterial stiffness, as evaluated by cfPWV, in elderly Algerian men and women. METHODS: cfPWV was studied in 321 Algerian men (81.2 ± 5.3 years) and women (81.1 ± 4.4 years). An age-matched and sex-matched cohort of European individuals (n = 321) was used as a control group. RESULTS: Comparatively to men, Algerian women exhibited higher BMI and heart rate (HR), higher prevalence of hypertension, and were more frequently treated for hypertension. cfPWV was not different between Algerian men (14.8 ± 3.3 m/s) and women (14.9 ± 3.4 m/s). By contrast, in Europeans, women had lower cfPWV (12.7 ± 2.7 m/s) than men (14.0 ± 3.3 m/s; P <0.001). Comparatively to European women, Algerian women had a higher cfPWV (P <0.01). In both ethnic groups, multivariate analyses revealed that age, mean blood pressure (BP), HR, and diabetes were positively associated with cfPWV, whereas female sex was associated with lower cfPWV only in Europeans. CONCLUSION: Elderly Algerian women exhibit arterial stiffness similar to men, whereas European women display lower arterial stiffness than men. This loss of 'arterial sex advantage' in Algerians may be explained by higher BP, HR, and a worse metabolic profile in Algerian women. Interventions in emerging populations, especially in women, should be a priority in order to address these risk factors by acting on current lifestyle.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Temmar et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: