Why the study?
This study aimed to evaluate the association between insulin resistance, assessed noninvasively by the estimated glucose disposal rate, and the risk of abdominal aortic calcification.
Does a higher estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR) reduce the risk of severe abdominal aortic calcification in adults ≥40 years old?
Does a higher estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR) reduce the risk of severe abdominal aortic calcification in adults ≥40 years old?
Higher estimated glucose disposal rate, indicating lower insulin resistance, is associated with a reduced risk of severe abdominal aortic calcification, particularly in women.
May aid AAC risk stratification in adults ≥40; leaves open whether IR modification alters calcification progression.
Purpose The estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR) serves as a straightforward and noninvasive indicator of insulin resistance (IR). This study aims to explore the association between eGDR and the risk of abdominal aortic calcification (AAC). Methods We utilized data from adult participants (≥40 years old, n=3006) from the 2013–2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) database. AAC was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and quantified using the Kauppila score. Severe AAC (SAAC) was defined as an AAC score > 6. Logistic regression, restricted cubic spline (RCS), and subgroup analysis were used to analyze the relationship between eGDR and SAAC risk. Results In fully adjusted models, eGDR was found to be negatively associated with SAAC (OR=0.86, 95%CI:0.79–0.94, P <0.001). Compared to participants in the lowest eGDR quantile, those in the highest quantile exhibited a lower risk of SAAC (OR=0.47, 95%CI:0.25–0.91, P =0.026). The RCS analysis indicates a nonlinear relationship between eGDR and SAAC risk, with a turning point at 7.05 mg/kg/min. Subgroup analysis showed that the association between eGDR and SAAC risk was more significant in women. Conclusions The degree of IR assessed by eGDR is associated with SAAC risk. The eGDR shows promise as an epidemiological tool for evaluating the influence of IR on AAC.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhao et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: