What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Meta-Analysis. Population: Mortality and major non-communicable diseases. Intervention: Ideal cardiovascular health (Life's Essential 8) vs. Poor cardiovascular health. Primary outcome: All-cause mortality (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.40-0.48, p=<0.001).

What does this research mean for the field?

An ideal cardiovascular health score, as determined by Life's Essential 8, is strongly inversely associated with the risk of all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality, as well as the incidence of major non-communicable diseases. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.SYNTHESIS. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

October 23, 2025Frontiers in Cardiovascular MedicineOpen Access

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between cardiovascular health determined by life's essential 8 and risk of mortality and major non-communicable diseases

Q: What are the key findings of this study?

Ideal cardiovascular health, as determined by Life's Essential 8, was associated with a 56% lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.44) compared to poor cardiovascular health.

Q: What does this research mean for the field?

An ideal cardiovascular health score, as determined by Life's Essential 8, is strongly inversely associated with the risk of all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality, as well as the incidence of major non-communicable diseases. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.SYNTHESIS. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Key result

Ideal Life's Essential 8 cardiovascular health links to ~56% lower all-cause mortality versus poor health.

RR 0.44
95% CI 0.40-0.48
P<0.001

Why the study?

The study aimed to explore the associations between cardiovascular health determined by Life's Essential 8 and the risk of mortality and major non-communicable diseases.

Does ideal cardiovascular health determined by Life's Essential 8 reduce the risk of mortality and major non-communicable diseases in adults?

Population

46 eligible studies

Comparison

Ideal CVH score category vs poor CVH score category

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors

GLGuangkai LiShandong University YZYanfang ZhangBengbu Medical College QWQingxu WuShandong University

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Supports promoting ideal CVH now; leaves open whether interventions improving Life's Essential 8 scores causally reduce mortality.

Study Design

Type

Meta-Analysis

Structured PICO

Does ideal cardiovascular health determined by Life's Essential 8 reduce the risk of mortality and major non-communicable diseases in adults?

Population

Adults ≥ 18 years without baseline severe comorbidities from 46 prospective cohort studies followed for 2.3 to 33 years to evaluate the association between Life's Essential 8 cardiovascular health scores and mortality or major non-communicable diseases.

Exposure

Ideal cardiovascular health (CVH) status determined by Life's Essential 8 (LE8) score

Comparator

Poor or lowest CVH score category

Outcome

All-cause mortality, CVD mortality, total cancer mortality, incident CVD, incident total cancer, and incident all-cause dementiahard clinical

Main Result

Relative Risk: 0.44 (95% CI 0.4–0.48)

p-value: p=<0.001

Ideal cardiovascular health, as measured by the Life's Essential 8 score, is strongly and inversely associated with all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and the incidence of major non-communicable diseases.

Limitations

Significant heterogeneity among the included studies with unclear sources
Considerable differences in the confounders adjusted across studies
Small sample size in some studies might bias the pooled estimates
Limited availability of eligible literatures for some outcomes requiring further validation
significant heterogeneity among the included studies, with the sources of this heterogeneity remaining unclear
considerable differences exist in the confounders adjusted across studies

Cite This Study

Li et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in Mortality and major non-communicable diseases. Ideal cardiovascular health (Life's Essential 8) vs. Poor cardiovascular health was evaluated on All-cause mortality (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.40-0.48, p=<0.001). Ideal cardiovascular health, as determined by Life's Essential 8, was associated with a 56% lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.44) compared to poor cardiovascular health.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1f13556cf312cbfa08368d https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2025.1612056

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

October 23, 2025Frontiers in Cardiovascular MedicineOpen Access

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between cardiovascular health determined by life's essential 8 and risk of mortality and major non-communicable diseases

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Key result

Ideal Life's Essential 8 cardiovascular health links to ~56% lower all-cause mortality versus poor health.

RR 0.44
95% CI 0.40-0.48
P<0.001

Why the study?

The study aimed to explore the associations between cardiovascular health determined by Life's Essential 8 and the risk of mortality and major non-communicable diseases.

Does ideal cardiovascular health determined by Life's Essential 8 reduce the risk of mortality and major non-communicable diseases in adults?

Population

46 eligible studies

Comparison

Ideal CVH score category vs poor CVH score category

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors

GLGuangkai LiShandong University YZYanfang ZhangBengbu Medical College QWQingxu WuShandong University

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Supports promoting ideal CVH now; leaves open whether interventions improving Life's Essential 8 scores causally reduce mortality.

Study Design

Type

Meta-Analysis

Structured PICO

Does ideal cardiovascular health determined by Life's Essential 8 reduce the risk of mortality and major non-communicable diseases in adults?

Population

Exposure

Ideal cardiovascular health (CVH) status determined by Life's Essential 8 (LE8) score

Comparator

Poor or lowest CVH score category

Outcome

All-cause mortality, CVD mortality, total cancer mortality, incident CVD, incident total cancer, and incident all-cause dementiahard clinical

Main Result

Relative Risk: 0.44 (95% CI 0.4–0.48)

p-value: p=<0.001

Limitations

Significant heterogeneity among the included studies with unclear sources
Considerable differences in the confounders adjusted across studies
Small sample size in some studies might bias the pooled estimates
Limited availability of eligible literatures for some outcomes requiring further validation
significant heterogeneity among the included studies, with the sources of this heterogeneity remaining unclear
considerable differences exist in the confounders adjusted across studies

Cite This Study

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1f13556cf312cbfa08368d https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2025.1612056

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark