Key result
Clinical obesity linked to ~28% greater risk of any arrhythmias versus non-obesity.
Why the study?
Current BMI-based paradigms fail to capture the complexity of obesity, and the effects of novel obesity stages proposed by The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology Commission on arrhythmias remain unknown.
Does preclinical and clinical obesity increase the risk of new-onset arrhythmias in individuals without prior arrhythmias?
Does preclinical and clinical obesity increase the risk of new-onset arrhythmias in individuals without prior arrhythmias?
Both preclinical and clinical obesity, as defined by the novel Lancet framework, are associated with a significantly increased risk of various arrhythmias and proarrhythmic ECG changes over a 14.6-year follow-up.
Clinical obesity linked to higher arrhythmia risk; extends observational data but leaves open causality and intervention effects.
Background Obesity has been associated with increased risk of arrhythmias. However, current BMI-based diagnostic paradigm is unable to capture the complexity of obesity. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology Commission has recently proposed a novel obesity classification framework. The effects of different obesity stages on arrhythmias remain unknown. Purpose To compare the risk of arrhythmias and ECG features among individuals with different obesity status. Methods This study analyzed data from UK Biobank participants with available data for obesity classification and without prior arrhythmias. Participants were stratified into non-obesity, preclinical obesity, and clinical obesity groups using The Lancet definitions. The co-primary outcomes were new-onset any arrhythmias, supraventricular arrhythmias (SVA), bradyarrhythmias, and ventricular arrhythmias (VA). Individual components of the primary outcomes were analyzed as secondary endpoints. Multivariable Cox models were applied to evaluate the associations between obesity status with arrhythmias. Results This study included 428562 participants, with 157787 classified as non-obesity, 86400 as preclinical obesity, and 184375 as clinical obesity. Over a median follow-up of 14.6 years, compared to non-obesity, preclinical obesity was associated with increased risk of any arrhythmias (adjusted HR 1.06, P<0.001), SVA (aHR 1.09, P<0.001), atrial fibrillation (aHR 1.10, P<0.001), and cardiac block (aHR 1.08, P<0.001) (Figure 1). Compared to non-obesity, clinical obesity significantly increased the risk of any arrhythmias (aHR 1.28, P<0.001), SVA (aHR 1.31, P<0.001), bradyarrhythmias (aHR 1.24, P<0.001), VA (aHR 1.16, P<0.001), AF (aHR 1.34, P<0.001), cardiac block (aHR 1.28, P<0.001), pacemaker insertion (aHR 1.18, P<0.001), ventricular tachycardia (aHR 1.22, P<0.001), implantable cardioverter defibrillator insertion (aHR 1.44, P<0.001), and cardiac arrest (aHR 1.16, P=0.009) (Figure 1). When compared to preclinical obesity, clinical obesity was associated with significantly higher risk of any arrhythmias, SVA, bradyarrhythmias, VA, AF, supraventricular tachycardia, cardiac block, sinus node dysfunction, pacemaker insertion, premature ventricular beats, VT, and cardiac arrest (all p<0.05) (Figure 2). Additionally, clinical obesity exhibited significant correlations with ECG alterations, including prolonged P-wave duration, PR interval, QTc interval, and QRS duration, accompanied by shortened RR interval, elevated ventricular rate, significant altered P-wave axis and R-wave axis (all P<0.05), compared to preclinical obesity (Figure 2). Conclusions Both preclinical and clinical obesity confer elevated arrhythmia risks, with clinical obesity demonstrating particularly pronounced associations across atrial, ventricular, and conduction system arrhythmias and presenting with significant proarrhythmic electrophysiological shifts.Figure 1 Figure 2
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2025) studied this question. Clinical obesity increased risk of any arrhythmias by 28% (aHR 1.28) and atrial fibrillation by 34% (aHR 1.34) versus non-obesity over 14.6 years.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: