4.7 Article

Prognostic significance of the Complex Visceral Adiposity Index vs. simple anthropometric measures: Tehran lipid and glucose study

期刊

CARDIOVASCULAR DIABETOLOGY
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1475-2840-11-20

关键词

Body mass index; Cardiovascular disease; Prediction; Visceral adiposity index; Waist-to-height ratio; Waist-to-hip ratio

资金

  1. National Research Council of the Islamic Republic of Iran [121]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Visceral adiposity index (VAI) has recently been suggested to be used as a surrogate of visceral adiposity. We examined if VAI could improve predictive performances for CVD of the Framingham's general CVD algorithm (a multivariate model incorporating established CVD risk factors). We compared the predictive abilities of the VAI with those of simple anthropometric measures i.e. BMI, waist to height ratio (WHtR) or waist tohip ratio (WHpR). Design and methods: In a nine-year population-based follow-up, 6 407 (2 778 men) participants, free of CVD at baseline, aged >= 30 years were eligible for the current analysis. The risk of CVD was estimated by incorporating VAI, BMI, WHpR, and WHtR, one at a time, into multivariate accelerated failure time models. Results: We documented 534 CVD events with the annual incidence rate (95%CIs) being 7.3 (6.4-8.3) among women and 13.0 (11.7-14.6) among men. Risk of future CVD increased with increasing levels of VAI among both men and women. VAI was associated with multivariate-adjusted increased risk of incident CVD among women. However, the magnitude of risk conferred by VAI was not significantly higher than those conferred by BMI, WHpR, or WHtR. Among men, after adjustment for established CVD risk factors, VAI was no longer associated with increased risk of CVD. VAI failed to add to the predictive ability of the Framingham general CVD algorithm. Conclusions: Using VAI instead of simple anthropometric measures may lead to loss of much information needed for predicting 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