Key result
Having 6 to 7 ideal cardiovascular health metrics was associated with a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular disease compared to 0 to 1 metrics (HR 0.12; 95% CI 0.02-0.87).
Why the study?
The study was conducted to estimate the prevalence of ideal cardiovascular health and determine its relationship with cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality in a Chinese population.
Does a higher number of ideal cardiovascular health metrics reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality in a Chinese middle-aged population?
Cohort (n=8,754)
Does a higher number of ideal cardiovascular health metrics reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality in a Chinese middle-aged population?
Hazard Ratio: 0.12 (95% CI 0.02–0.87)
Absolute Event Rate: 0.4% vs 6.02%
A greater number of ideal cardiovascular health metrics is strongly associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality in middle-aged Chinese adults, though the prevalence of ideal health is extremely low.
CVH metric assessment may aid risk stratification in middle-aged Chinese adults; extends prior evidence but remains hypothesis-generating.
We estimated the prevalence of ideal cardiovascular health (CVH), and its relationship with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality in a Chinese population. A cross-sectional survey of CVD risk factors was conducted among Chinese participants aged 35 to 64 years in 2009 to 2010. In 2017, 8965 participants completed follow-up assessments in which CVD and all-cause mortality were collected; 8754 participants were eligible for analysis. The percentage of meeting all 7 ideal CVH metrics was 0.10%. During a median follow-up of 6.3 years, the incidence of CVD and all-cause mortality were 6.02% and 4.85% per 1000 person-year in participants with 0 to 1 ideal CVH metrics, 3.33% and 3.57% in those with 2 to 5, 0.40% and 0.79% in those with 6 to 7, respectively. After adjusting for covariates, the risk of CVD was significantly lower in participants with 2 to 5 (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45-0.98) and 6 to 7 (HR: 0.12, 95%CI: 0.02-0.87) ideal CVH metrics compared to those with 0 to 1 ideal CVH metrics. The risk of all-cause mortality was decreased as ideal CVH metrics increased (HR: 0.78, 95%CI: 0.70-0.88). A greater number of ideal CVH metrics was associated with a lower risk of CVD and all-cause mortality, but the prevalence of all 7 ideal CVH metrics was low in a Chinese population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dong et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Cardiovascular disease (n=8,754). 6 to 7 ideal cardiovascular health (CVH) metrics vs. 0 to 1 ideal CVH metrics was evaluated on Cardiovascular disease (CVD) (HR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02-0.87). Having 6 to 7 ideal cardiovascular health metrics was associated with a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular disease compared to 0 to 1 metrics (HR 0.12; 95% CI 0.02-0.87).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: