4.4 Review

Association of Physical Fitness With the Risk of Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

CLINICAL CARDIOLOGY
卷 39, 期 7, 页码 421-428

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/clc.22552

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [8153000545, 81530013, 81370288]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2013CB531103]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several studies have investigated the role of physical fitness in atrial fibrillation (AF), but the results remain controversial. We aimed to estimate the association between physical fitness and risk of AF. We comprehensively retrieved data from the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases until February 29, 2016, for studies evaluating the association of physical fitness with the risk of AF. Data were abstracted from included studies, and effect estimates were pooled using a random-effects model. Six studies with a total of 205094 participants and 15919 AF cases fulfilled the inclusion criteria. When physical fitness was assessed as a continuous variable, per incremental increase of physical fitness was associated with a 9% reduced risk of AF (risk ratio [RR]: 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.84-1.00, P = 0.05). When physical fitness was assessed as a categorical variable, the risk of AF was significantly reduced (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.28-0.91, P = 0.02) in individuals with the highest level of physical fitness compared with those with the lowest level. The intermediate vs the lowest level of physical fitness was associated with a 28% reduced risk of AF (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.56-0.93, P = 0.01). The sensitivity analysis indicated that these results were stable. Notably, there was evidence of statistical heterogeneity across studies; therefore, we should interpret the results cautiously. In conclusion, published literature supports that a higher level of physical fitness is associated with a lower risk of AF. Further studies should be performed to confirm these findings.

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

4.4
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