Why the study?
A body shape index (ABSI) is associated with cardiovascular risk factors and events, but its association with endothelial function was unknown.
Is a body shape index (ABSI) associated with endothelial dysfunction in men and women?
Is a body shape index (ABSI) associated with endothelial dysfunction in men and women?
A body shape index (ABSI) is independently associated with endothelial dysfunction in both men and women, suggesting its utility in cardiovascular risk evaluation.
A body shape index (ABSI) was proposed for estimation of abdominal adiposity. ABSI has been reported to have associations with cardiovascular risk factors and cardiovascular events. However, there is no information on the association between ABSI and endothelial function. We examined cross-sectional associations of ABSI with endothelial function in 8823 subjects (6773 men and 2050 women). Subjects with a lower quartile of flow-mediated vasodilation (FMD) were defined as subjects having endothelial dysfunction. Pearson's correlation coefficient analysis revealed that ABSI was negatively correlated with FMD (men, r = - 0.23, P = 0.003; women, r = - 0.32, P < 0.001). The areas under the curves of ABSI and body mass index to predict endothelial dysfunction were 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.65) and 0.58 (95% CI 0.57-0.60) in men, and 0.68 (95% CI 0.66-0.71) and 0.59 (95% CI 0.56-0.61) in women, respectively. The cutoff values of ABSI for predicting subjects with endothelial dysfunction were 0.0796 (sensitivity, 55.2%; specificity, 65.5%) in men and 0.0823 (sensitivity, 56.2%; specificity, 73.4%) in women. Multivariate analysis revealed that an ABSI value higher than the cutoff value remained an independent predictor of endothelial dysfunction in both sexes. The results of our study suggest that ABSI calculation should be performed for evaluation of risk of cardiovascular events in both men and women.Clinical trial registration information URL for Clinical Trial: https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm ; Registration Number for Clinical Trial: UMIN000012952 (01/05/2010).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kajikawa et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: