3.8 Article

Lean body mass index prognostic value for cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease

Journal

HEART ASIA
Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 12-18

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/heartasia-2015-010644

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective Little is known about the relationship between body composition indicators, including body mass index (BMI), fat mass index (FMI) and lean BMI (LBMI), and adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in Asian populations. The aim of this study was to clarify this relationship. Methods The SHINANO registry is a prospective, observational, multicenter cohort registry that enrolled 1923 consecutive patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) from August 2012 to July 2013; 66 patients were excluded because of missing data. We evaluated 1857 patients with CHD who underwent PCI (aged 70 +/- 11 years; 23% women; BMI 23.8 +/- 3.5 kg/m(2); LBMI 18.3 +/- 1.8 kg/m(2); FMI 5.4 +/- 2.2 kg/m(2)). Patients were divided into three groups, based on BMI, LBMI and FMI tertiles, to assess the prognostic value of the three indicators. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including all cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and ischaemic stroke at 1 year. Results Over a 1 year follow-up period (1776 patients, 95.6%), the cumulative MACE incidence was 8.7% (161 cases). Using Kaplan-Meier analysis, the MACE incidence was significantly higher in patients with lower BMI values (13.4-22.2 kg/m(2)) (p=0.002) and lower LBMI values (11.6-17.6 kg/m(2)) (p<0.001); this trend was not observed for FMI. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that lower LBMI but not lower BMI values were predictive of a higher MACE incidence (HR 1.55; 95% CI 1.05 to 2.30). Conclusions Lower LBMI values are associated with adverse outcomes in an Asian population with CHD undergoing PCI. LBMI is a better predictor of MACE than BMI or FMI.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available