Cadmium and peripheral arterial disease: Gender differences in the 1999-2004 US national health and nutrition examination survey

Maria Tellez-Plaza, Ana Navas-Acien, Ciprian M. Crainiceanu, A. Richey Sharrett, Eliseo Guallar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

87 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Gender differences in the association of blood and urine cadmium concentrations with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) were evaluated by using data from 6,456 US adults aged ≥40 years who participated in the 1999-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. PAD was defined as an ankle-brachial blood pressure index of <0.9 in at least one leg. For men, the adjusted odds ratios for PAD comparing the highest with the lowest quintiles of blood and urine cadmium concentrations were 1.82 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.82, 4.05) and 4.90 (95% CI: 1.55, 15.54), respectively, with a progressive dose-response relation and no difference by smoking status. For women, the corresponding odds ratios were 1.19 (95% CI: 0.66, 2.16) and 0.56 (95% CI: 0.18, 1.71), but there was evidence of effect modification by smoking: among women ever smokers, there was a positive, progressive dose-response relation; among women never smokers, there was a U-shaped dose-response relation. Higher blood and urine cadmium levels were associated with increased prevalence of PAD, but women never smokers showed a U-shaped relation with increased prevalence of PAD at very low cadmium levels. These findings add to the concern of increased cadmium exposure as a cardiovascular risk factor in the general population.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)671-681
Number of pages11
JournalAmerican Journal of Epidemiology
Volume172
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sept 15 2010

Funding

FundersFunder number
National Institute of Environmental Health SciencesR01ES007198

    ASJC Scopus Subject Areas

    • Epidemiology

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Cadmium and peripheral arterial disease: Gender differences in the 1999-2004 US national health and nutrition examination survey'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this