Key result
Higher residential traffic exposure linked to a ~36% increase in CRP and higher pulse pressure.
Why the study?
Traffic exposure may increase cardiovascular disease risk via systemic inflammation and elevated blood pressure, but the degree and consistency of these associations using different exposure indicators were unclear in a U.S. Puerto Rican population.
Does higher residential traffic exposure increase C-reactive protein and pulse pressure in an adult U.S. Puerto Rican population?
Cross-Sectional (n=1,017)
Does higher residential traffic exposure increase C-reactive protein and pulse pressure in an adult U.S. Puerto Rican population?
Effect estimate: 36% difference (95% CI 2.5-81)
Residential traffic exposure is associated with increased systemic inflammation and pulse pressure, particularly in individuals with obesity or diabetes, suggesting a mechanism for increased CVD risk.
Traffic exposure was associated with CRP and PP; hypothesis-generating for CVD risk and requires prospective confirmation before clinical relevance.
Background Traffic exposure may increase cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk via systemic inflammation and elevated blood pressure, two important clinical markers for managing disease progression. Objectives We assessed degree and consistency of association between traffic exposure indicators as predictors of C-reactive protein (CRP) and pulse pressure (PP) in an adult U.S. Puerto Rican population (n = 1,017). Methods Cross-sectional information on health and demographics and blood data was collected. Using multiple linear regression, we tested for associations between CRP, PP, and six traffic exposure indicators including residential proximity to roads with > 20,000 vehicles/day and traffic density [vehicle miles traveled per square mile (VMT/mi2)]. Diabetes and obesity [body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2] were tested as effect modifiers. Results CRP was positively associated with traffic density in the total population [36% CRP difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.5–81%] for residence within the highest versus lowest VMT/mi2 level. With BMI ≥ 30, CRP showed significant positive associations with five of six traffic indices including residence ≤ 200 m versus > 200 m of a roadway [22.7% CRP difference (95% CI, 3.15–46.1)] and traffic density in the third highest versus lowest VMT/mi2 level [28.1% difference (95% CI, 1.0–62.6)]. PP was positively associated with residence within ≤ 100 m of a roadway for the total population [2.2 mmHg (95% CI, 0.13–4.3 mmHg)] and persons with BMI ≥ 30 [3.8 mmHg (95% CI, 0.88–6.8)]. Effect estimates approximately doubled for residence within ≤ 200 m of two or more roadways, particularly in persons with diabetes [8.1 mmHg (95% CI, 2.2–14.1)]. Conclusions Traffic exposure at roadway volumes as low as 20,000–40,000 vehicles/day may increase CVD risk through adverse effects on blood pressure and inflammation. Individuals with elevated inflammation profiles, that is, BMI ≥ 30, may be more susceptible to the effects of traffic exposure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rioux et al. (2010) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiovascular disease risk (n=1,017). Residential traffic exposure vs. Lower traffic exposure was evaluated on C-reactive protein (CRP) difference for highest versus lowest traffic density (36% difference, 95% CI 2.5-81). Residential traffic exposure was associated with a 36% increase in C-reactive protein (95% CI 2.5-81%) and a 2.2 mmHg increase in pulse pressure (95% CI 0.13-4.3) in the total population.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: