4.4 Article

Conicity Index and Waist-to-Hip Ratio Are Superior Obesity Indices in Predicting 10-Year Cardiovascular Risk Among Men and Women

Journal

CLINICAL CARDIOLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 9, Pages 527-534

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/clc.22437

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease Research Center, Firoozgar Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundCentral obesity has been recognized as a main risk factor for cardiovascular (CV) events. Three popular central obesity indices are waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), and waist-to-height ratio; abdominal volume index and conicity index are 2 recent novel obesity indices. The main aim of this study is to determine the performance of these indices to best predict 10-year CV events. HypothesisSome obesity indices can be used to predict cardiovascular risk. MethodsIn total, 3199 subjects (age range, 40-79 years) were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and Framingham risk score tools were used to estimate the 10-year CV events. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the optimal discriminator(s) among the central obesity measures in the estimation of a 10-year risk of CV events 7.5%, 10%, and 20% separately. ResultsAmong the 5 central obesity indices, conicity index showed the most discriminatory power in estimation of a 10-year CV risk. In men, based on the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association tool, the areas under the curve (AUCs) were from 0.671 to 0.682 based on the 3 above thresholds, whereas with the Framingham tool, AUCs were from 0.651 to 0.659. In women, all AUCs were >0.7. Our results also showed WHR to be an almost comparable discriminator of CV disease risk in the Iranian study population. ConclusionConicity index and WHR had a more discriminatory accuracy for 10-year CV events compared with the other obesity indices.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available