4.7 Article

Obesity and risk of sepsis: A population-based cohort study

期刊

OBESITY
卷 21, 期 12, 页码 E762-E769

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/oby.20468

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Service [U01-NS041588]
  2. National Institute for Nursing Research [R01-NR012726]
  3. National Center for Research Resources [UL1-RR025777]
  4. Center for Clinical and Translational Science
  5. Lister Hill Center for Health Policy of the University of Alabama at Birmingham

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Sepsis, the syndrome of microbial infection complicated by systemic inflammation, is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. To determine if obesity increases risk of sepsis events. Design and Methods Data from the 30,239 subject population-based longitudinal cohort study REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) were used. Using measurements at the start of the study, we defined obesity using body mass index (BMI; <18.5 kg/m2 = underweight, 18.5-24.9 = normal, 25.0-29.9 = overweight, 30.0-39.9 = obese, 40 = morbidly obese) and waist circumference (WC; [male 102 cm or female 88 cm] = normal, [male >102 cm or female >88 cm] = obese). Over an 8-year observation period, we evaluated the association between obesity and subsequent sepsis events, adjusting for sociodemographic factors, health behaviors, chronic medical conditions, statin use, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. Results There were 975 incident sepsis events. Compared to those with a BMI of 18.5-24.9, sepsis risk was higher only for BMI 40 (hazard ratio [HR] 1.57, [1.16-2.14]). Risk of sepsis was associated with increased WC (HR 1.34 [1.14-1.56]). In a model with both BMI and WC, sepsis risk was associated with increased WC (HR 1.47 [1.20-1.79]) but not BMI. Conclusions Obesity is independently associated with future sepsis events. WC is a better predictor of future sepsis risk than BMI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据