4.6 Article

Quadriceps Strength as a Predictor of Mortality in Coronary Artery Disease

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
卷 128, 期 11, 页码 1212-1219

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.06.035

关键词

Coronary artery disease; Muscle strength; Prognosis

资金

  1. Japanese Physical Therapy Association
  2. Japanese Society of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention - AstraZeneca
  3. Japan Heart Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the prognostic value of quadriceps isometric strength (QIS) in coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: The study population consisted of 1314 patients aged >30 years (64.7 +/- 10.6 years, 1051 male) with CAD who were hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome or coronary artery bypass grafting. Maximal QIS was evaluated as a marker of leg strength and expressed relative to body weight (% body weight). The primary and secondary endpoints were all-cause death and cardiovascular (CV) death, respectively. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 5.0 +/- 3.5 years, corresponding to 6537 person-years, there were 118 all-cause deaths and 63 CV deaths. A higher QIS remained associated with decreased all-cause mortality and CV mortality risks (hazard ratio for increasing 10% body weight of QIS 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.67-0.89, P < .001 for all-cause death; hazard ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.54-0.82, P < .001 for CV death) after adjustment for other prognostic factors. The inclusion of QIS significantly increased both continuous net reclassification improvement (cNRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) for all-cause death (cNRI: 0.25, P = .009; IDI: 0.007, P = .030) and CV death (cNRI: 0.34, P = .008; IDI: 0.013, P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: A high level of quadriceps strength was strongly associated with a lower risk of both all-cause and CV mortality in patients with CAD. Evaluation of QIS offered incremental prognostic information beyond pre-existing risk factors. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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