4.7 Article

Insulin resistance, the metabolic syndrome, and risk of incident cardiovascular disease - A population-based study

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 49, 期 21, 页码 2112-2119

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.01.088

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives The goal was to clarify if insulin resistance (IR) would predict cardiovascular disease (CVD) independent of the metabolic syndrome (MetSyn). Background Although the cause of MetSyn is not well defined, IR has been proposed to be an important cause. Only a small number of population-based studies have sought to clarify if IR predicts CVD independent of MetSyn. Methods This was a prospective Danish population-based study of 2,493 men and women, age 41 to 72 years, without major CVD at baseline. We defined MetSyn according to both the International Diabetes Foundation (IDF) and the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) criteria, and we quantified IR by the homeostasis model assessment (HOMA-IR). Prevalence of MetSyn was 21% according to IDF criteria and :16% according to NCEP criteria. Accordingly, we defined IDF-HOMA-IR as belonging to the highest 21% of the HOMA-IR distribution, and NCEP-HOMA-IR as belonging to the highest :16% of the HOMA-IR distribution. Results Over a median follow-up of 9.4 years, the incidence of CV end points (CV death, nonfatal ischemic heart disease, and nonfatal stroke) amounted to 233 cases. In proportional hazard models, adjusting for age, gender, smoking, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and with IDF-HOMA-IR and IDF-MetSyn included in the same model, the relative risk of an end point was 1.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22 to 2.29) for IDF-HOMA-IR and 1.16 (95% Cl 0.84 to 1.60) for IDF-MetSyn. The corresponding figures for NCEP-HOMA-IR and NCEP-MetSyn included in the same model were 1.49 (95% Cl 1.07 to 2.07) and 1.56 (95% Cl 1.12 to 2.17). Conclusions In this Danish study, both HOMA-IR and NCEP-MetSyn were independent predictors of incident CVD.

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