Why the study?
Traditional cardiovascular risk factors make only a minor contribution to carotid intima-media thickness variance, leaving it unclear which upstream CVD risk factors are independently associated with cIMT.
Are cardiovascular risk factors independently associated with increased carotid intima-media thickness in adults?
Are cardiovascular risk factors independently associated with increased carotid intima-media thickness in adults?
Age and systolic blood pressure are the strongest independent risk factors for increased carotid intima-media thickness, a surrogate marker for cardiovascular disease.
Demographic patterns and upstream markers of cIMT in UK Biobank warrant prospective validation; leaves open their independent contribution beyond traditional risk factors.
BACKGROUND: Traditional modifiable cardiovascular risk factors, such as high blood pressure, have long been positively correlated with high carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT). However, traditional cardiovascular risk factors made a minor contribution to cIMT variance, meaning that other markers may be regarded as independent markers for increasing cIMT. AIMS: To investigate the simple demographic patterns of carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) in the UK Biobank and to identify which upstream cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors are independently associated with cIMT. METHODS AND RESULTS: = 42,726). RESULTS: This study showed that the cardiovascular risk profile generally worsened across the cIMT quantiles from lowest to highest. The lowest cIMT quartile was defined as having a mean cIMT < 588 µm, while the highest cIMT quartile was defined as having a mean cIMT > 748 µm. Specifically, the highest cIMT quantile group had a worse CVD risk factors profile compared to the lowest cIMT quantile group. It was found that, for every one SD increase in age and systolic blood pressure, the mean cIMT increased by 0.357 SD and 0.115 SD, respectively. CONCLUSION: Systolic blood pressure and age were the strongest independent risk factors for a high cIMT value compared to other risk factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alghibiwi et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: