Effects of race, sex, and socioeconomic status upon cardiovascular stress responsivity and recovery in youth.
ABSTRACT Cardiovascular (CV) responsivity to and recovery from acute laboratory stressors, as derived from aggregate scores of CV functioning during and after postural change, video game challenge, social competence interview, and parent-child conflict discussion, were evaluated in 272 youths [mean age 13.5 +/- 2.6 years; 162 Blacks (77 males, 85 females), 110 Whites (60 males, 50 females)], all with a positive family history of essential hypertension. Blacks demonstrated greater systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP) and lower heart rate responsivity compared to Whites (all P values < 0.05). A race by neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES) interaction for SBP responsivity was also observed where low SES Whites and high SES Blacks had the greatest responsivity compared to their same race cohorts. Additionally, upper SES Whites had the lowest total peripheral resistance responsivity. For recovery, Blacks and males exhibited higher SBP during recovery compared to Whites and females, respectively. These findings extend previous studies and provide further support for the hypothesis that recovery from stress is a potentially informative component of the contribution of stress responsivity to cardiovascular disease.
Article: The role of rumination in recovery from reactivity: cardiovascular consequences of emotional states.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: While most investigations of the link between blood pressure responses and later disease have focused on acute reactivity during stressful tasks, there is some theoretical and empirical reason to believe that examining recovery and later re-creations of BP responses may also be useful. Two experiments explored situational determinants of sustained BP elevations, examining whether the extent of recovery and the ability to later mentally recreate the response are influenced by the magnitude or emotionality of the initial task and also whether preventing rumination after a stressor has ended speeds recovery. Experiment 1, with 72 normotensive male and female undergraduates, examined BP and heart rate before, during, and after a task and also before, during, and after the mental re-creation of that task. Four tasks were used, designed to produce high initial reactivity with an emotional component (mental arithmetic with harassment), low reactivity with emotion (shock avoidance), high reactivity without emotion (physical exercise), or low reactivity without emotion (cold pressor). Experiment 2, with 20 normotensive male and female undergraduates, compared the cardiovascular recovery of persons who were either given a distractor task or just sat quietly immediately after a mental arithmetic task. Study 1 revealed that only the emotional tasks were associated with delayed BP recovery and elevations during later rumination. Blood pressure during recovery and later rumination was independent of the original reactivity. Experiment 2 found that participants with the distractor, who presumably could not ruminate, showed better BP recovery. Situations that put people at risk may include not just those that cause large BP elevations, but also emotion-producing situations that lead to sustained and recurring elevations.Psychosomatic Medicine 64(5):714-26. · 3.97 Impact Factor
Article: Elevated C-Reactive Protein in Children from Risky Neighborhoods: Evidence for a Stress Pathway Linking Neighborhoods and Inflammation in Children[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background: Childhood socioeconomic status is linked to adult cardiovascular disease and disease risk. One proposed pathway involves inflammation due to exposure to a stress-inducing neighborhood environment. Whether CRP, a marker of systemic inflammation, is associated with stressful neighborhood conditions among children is unknown.PLoS ONE 09/2012; · 4.09 Impact Factor
Article: The role of psychobiological pathways in socio-economic inequalities in cardiovascular disease risk.European Heart Journal 02/2002; 23(1):13-25. · 10.48 Impact Factor