4.7 Article

Body mass index and mortality from ischaemic heart disease in a lean population: 10 year prospective study of 220 000 adult men

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 35, Issue 1, Pages 141-150

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyi215

Keywords

body mass index; IHD; cohort study; epidemiology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Increased body mass index (BMI) is known to be related to ischaemic heart disease (IHD) in populations where many are overweight (BMI >= 25 kg/m(2)) or obese (BMI >= 30). Substantial uncertainty remains, however, about the relationship between BMI and IHD in populations with lower BMI levels. Methods We examined the data from a population-based, prospective cohort study of 222 000 Chinese men aged 40-79. Relative and absolute risks of death from IHD by baseline BMI were calculated, standardized for age, smoking, and other potential confounding factors. Results The mean baseline BMI was 21.7 kg/m(2), and 1942 IHD deaths were recorded during 10 years of follow-up (6.5% of all such deaths). Among men without prior vascular diseases at baseline, there was a J-shaped association between BMI and IHD mortality. Above 20 kg/m(2) there was a positive association of BMI with risk, with each 2 kg/m(2) higher in usual BMI associated with 12% (95% CI 6-19%, 2P = 0.0001) higher IHD mortality. Below this BMI range, however, the association appeared to be reversed, with risk ratios of 1.00, 1.09, and 1.15, respectively, for men with BMI 20-21.9, 18-19.9, and < 18 kg/m(2). The excess IHD risk observed at low BMI levels persisted after restricting analysis to never smokers or excluding the first 3 years of follow-up, and became about twice as great after allowing for blood pressure. Conclusions Lower BMI is associated with lower IHD risk among people in the so-called normal range of BMI values (20-25 kg/m(2)), but below that range the association may well be reversed.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available