Table 5 Association between LDL-C and hypertension in observational analysis and Mendelian randomization analysis
Observational analysis | Mendelian randomization Analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Counted GRS | Weighted GRS | ||
OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
Men | |||
Model 1 | |||
Optimal | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) |
Near optimal | 0.84 (0.75–0.95) | 1.15 (0.97–1.37) | 1.16 (0.97–1.37) |
High | 0.90 (0.79–1.01) | 1.64 (1.25–2.16) | 1.65 (1.26–2.17) |
Model 2 | |||
Optimal | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) |
Near optimal | 0.91 (0.79–1.04) | 1.07 (0.90–1.26) | 1.07 (0.90–1.27) |
High | 1.02 (0.89–1.17) | 1.40 (1.07–1.83) | 1.41 (1.08–1.84) |
Model 3 | |||
Optimal | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) |
Near optimal | 0.92 (0.80–1.05) | 1.07 (0.90–1.27) | 1.08 (0.91–1.27) |
High | 1.03 (0.90–1.18) | 1.41 (1.08–1.84) | 1.42 (1.09–1.85) |
Women | |||
Model 1 | |||
Optimal | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) |
Near optimal | 0.89 (0.79–0.99) | 1.18 (1.03–1.35) | 1.18 (1.03–1.36) |
High | 0.89 (0.80–0.99) | 1.83 (1.51–2.23) | 1.83 (1.50–2.23) |
Model 2 | |||
Optimal | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) |
Near optimal | 0.90 (0.79–1.02) | 1.18 (1.03–1.35) | 1.18 (1.03–1.36) |
High | 0.92 (0.81–1.04) | 1.83 (1.51–2.23) | 1.83 (1.50–2.23) |
Model 3 | |||
Optimal | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) |
Near optimal | 0.90 (0.79–1.02) | 1.18 (1.03–1.35) | 1.18 (1.03–1.35) |
High | 0.92 (0.81–1.03) | 1.83 (1.50–2.23) | 1.84 (1.51–2.24) |