4.5 Article

Cardiorespiratory Fitness, Different Measures of Adiposity, and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality Risk in Women

期刊

JOURNAL OF WOMENS HEALTH
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 319-326

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2019.7793

关键词

cardiovascular health; epidemiology; exercise

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Associations among cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), different adiposity exposures, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality in women are not well defined. Materials and Methods: A total of 19,838 women completed a baseline examination between 1971 and 2013. Measures included body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), waist-to-height (W:HT) ratio, skinfold-derived percent body fat (% Fat), and CRF estimated from a maximal treadmill test. CRF categories were low (quintile 1), moderate (quintiles 2-3), and high (quintiles 4-5); standard cut points were used for adiposity exposures. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using Cox regression. Results: During a mean follow-up period of 19.2 +/- 10.3 years, 391 cardiovascular deaths occurred. HRs (95% confidence interval) for CVD in moderate and low CRF groups, using high CRF as the referent, were 1.87 (1.46-2.38) and 2.54 (1.93-3.35), respectively (p trend <0.001). HRs of obese women within each adiposity exposure were higher when compared with normal-weight women (p <= 0.03). Joint associations of CRF x adiposity showed a positive trend in CVD mortality across decreasing categories of CRF within each category of W:HT and % Fat, as well as within the normal and overweight BMI categories and the normal WC category (p <= 0.03 for each). Conclusion: Higher levels of CRF are associated with lower CVD mortality risk in women, and predict lower risk of CVD mortality in normal-weight women and in obese women. Using different measures of adiposity to predict CVD mortality risk in women may be misleading unless CRF is taken into account. These results support the American Heart Association (AHA) recommendation for including CRF as a clinical vital sign.

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

4.5
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