4.1 Article

Central Obesity Index and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome

Journal

ARQUIVOS BRASILEIROS DE CARDIOLOGIA
Volume 94, Issue 5, Pages 633-638

Publisher

ARQUIVOS BRASILEIROS CARDIOLOGIA
DOI: 10.1590/S0066-782X2010005000029

Keywords

Polycystic ovary syndrome/complications; anthropometry; risk factors; cardiovascular disease; insulin resistance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) present a high prevalence of abdominal obesity which is associated with an increased cardiovascular risk. Objective: To verify the accuracy of the waist circumference (WC), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) and the conicity index (CI) in the detection of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) in women with PCOS. Methods: The present transversal study allocated 102 women (26.5 +/- 5 years) with a diagnosis of PCOS, according to the Rotterdam criteria. Total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), LDL-cholesterol (HDL-C), HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C), fasting glucose, glucose after the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and blood pressure (BP) were evaluated in all patients, in addition to the anthropometric variables. Results: The WHtR was the marker that presented significant positive correlations with the highest number of CVRF (BP, TG and post-OGTT glucose), whereas there was a negative correlation with HDL-C. All the evaluated anthropometric markers were positively correlated with BP, whereas WC and WHR also presented a positive correlation with TG. Regarding the accuracy for the detection of CVRF, the anthropometric markers presented a sensibility > 60%, especially the WHtR, which had a sensibility > 70%. Conclusion: The WHtR showed to be the most accurate anthropometric indicator for the prediction of CVRF. In this sense, we propose the inclusion of this easily-measured parameter in the clinical assessment for the screening of women with PCOS and CVRF. (Arq Bras Cardiol 2010;94(5):595-600)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available