4.6 Article

Cardiorespiratory Fitness, Body Mass Index, and Heart Failure Mortality in Men Cooper Center Longitudinal Study

期刊

CIRCULATION-HEART FAILURE
卷 6, 期 5, 页码 898-905

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.112.000088

关键词

body mass index; heart failure; physical fitness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background We evaluated the individual and joint associations among cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), body mass index, and heart failure (HF) mortality, as well as the additive effect of an increasing number of cardiovascular risk factors on HF mortality in fit versus unfit men. Methods and Results A total of 44 674 men without a history of cardiovascular disease underwent a baseline examination between 1971 and 2010. Measures included body mass index and CRF quantified as duration of maximal treadmill exercise testing. Participants were divided into age-specific low, moderate, and high CRF categories. Hazard ratios were computed with Cox regression analysis. During a mean follow-up of 19.810.4 years, 153 HF deaths occurred. Adjusted hazard ratios across high, moderate, and low CRF categories were 1.0, 1.63, and 3.97, respectively, whereas those of normal, overweight, and obese body mass index categories were 1.0, 1.56, and 3.71, respectively (P for trend <0.0001 for each). When grouped into categories of fit and unfit (upper 80% and lower 20% of CRF distribution, respectively), hazard ratios were significantly lower in fit compared with unfit men in normal and overweight body mass index strata (P<0.002) but not in obese men. Within men matched for the same number of HF risk factors, fit men had significantly lower HF mortality than unfit men (P0.02). Conclusions Higher baseline CRF is associated with lower HF mortality risk in men, regardless of the number of HF risk factors present. Men should be counseled on physical activity with the goal of achieving at least a moderate level of CRF, thereby presumably decreasing their risk of HF mortality.

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