Key result
Individuals with non-metabolic risk factors plus metabolic syndrome had a 4.3-fold higher odds of carotid atherosclerosis compared to those without these risk components.
Why the study?
Does risk stratification combining metabolic syndrome and non-metabolic risk factors improve the assessment of carotid atherosclerosis compared to metabolic syndrome alone in adults?
Cross-Sectional (n=1,189)
Yes
Does risk stratification combining metabolic syndrome and non-metabolic risk factors improve the assessment of carotid atherosclerosis compared to metabolic syndrome alone in adults?
Combining traditional non-metabolic risk factors with metabolic syndrome significantly improves risk stratification for carotid atherosclerosis compared to using metabolic syndrome alone.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May refine carotid atherosclerosis risk stratification in Japanese adults; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical use.
AIM: We aimed to develop a new approach to risk stratification using metabolic syndrome as well as traditional non-metabolic risk factors, and to examine its validity in carotid atherosclerosis. METHODS: A total of 1,189 men and women aged 21-93 years old were stratified according to the absence or presence of metabolic syndrome defined by Japanese criteria, non-metabolic risk factors, and a past history of coronary heart disease. The risk stratification was as follows: (S-1) persons without a past history, non-metabolic risk factors and metabolic syndrome, (S-2a) those with metabolic syndrome only, (S-2b) those with non-metabolic risk factors only, (S-3) those with non-metabolic risk factors and metabolic syndrome but no past history, and (S-4) those with a past history. Carotid atherosclerosis was defined as maximum intima-media thickness ≥1.1 mm of the far wall of the common carotid artery. RESULTS: Compared with individuals without these three risk components (S-1), the odds ratio was 7.2 (2.8-18.6) for a past history (S-4), 4.3 (1.7-10.9) for non-metabolic risk factors plus metabolic syndrome but no past history (S-3), 2.6 (1.1-6.4) for non-metabolic risk factors only (S-2b) and 0.5 (0.0-5.7) for metabolic syndrome only (S-2a). Net reclassification improvement from metabolic syndrome only (presence versus absence) to our risk stratification (≥S-3 versus < S-3) was 16.4% (p< 0.0001), suggesting that our risk stratification improved the classification of atherosclerosis in comparison to metabolic syndrome only. CONCLUSION: Risk stratification based on traditional non-metabolic risk factors plus metabolic syndrome rather than metabolic syndrome only appears to be more useful for the clinical assessment of atherosclerosis, and probably in the prevention and control of atherosclerotic disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Noda et al. (2011) conducted a cross-sectional in Carotid atherosclerosis (n=1,189). Non-metabolic risk factors plus metabolic syndrome vs. Absence of past history, non-metabolic risk factors, and metabolic syndrome was evaluated on Carotid atherosclerosis (maximum intima-media thickness ≥1.1 mm) (OR 4.3, 95% CI 1.7-10.9). Individuals with non-metabolic risk factors plus metabolic syndrome had a 4.3-fold higher odds of carotid atherosclerosis compared to those without these risk components.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: