4.6 Article

Association of metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance with congestive heart failure: findings from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

Journal

JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH
Volume 61, Issue 1, Pages 67-73

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jech.2006.048173

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Congestive heart failure (CHF) has been associated with insulin resistance, but few studies have examined its relationship with metabolic syndrome (MetS). Little is known about whether insulin resistance explains the association between MetS and CHF. Design: Population-based, cross-sectional surveys. Setting: Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey ( NHANES III). Participants: Data from 5549 men and non-pregnant women aged >= 40 years in NHANES III were analysed. Results: About 4% of men and 3% of women had CHF between 1988 and 1994 in the US. The age-adjusted prevalence of CHF was significantly higher in African Americans (4.1%), in Mexican Americans (8.5%) and in those of other ethnic origin (6.7%) than in white people (2.5%). People with MetS had nearly twice the likelihood of self-reported CHF (adjusted odds ratio 1.8; 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 3.0) after adjustment for demographic and conventional risk factors such as sex, ethnicity, age, smoking, total cholesterol, left ventricular hypertrophy, and probable or possible myocardial infarction determined by electrocardiography. However, this association was attenuated after further adjustment for insulin resistance as measured by the homoeostasis model assessment (HOMA). > 90% of the association between MetS and CHF was explained by the HOMA. Conclusions: MetS was associated with about a twofold increased likelihood of self-reported CHF and it may serve as a surrogate indicator for the association between insulin resistance and CHF.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available