Key result
Poor self-rated health was significantly associated with reduced odds of having ideal cardiovascular health metrics at follow-up (OR 0.68) compared to excellent self-rated health.
Why the study?
Both self-rated health and AHA cardiovascular health metrics predict cardiovascular events, but their longitudinal relationship had not been studied.
Is self-rated health associated with ideal cardiovascular health metrics in an Asian population?
Cohort (n=15,608)
Yes
Is self-rated health associated with ideal cardiovascular health metrics in an Asian population?
Self-rated health is a significant longitudinal predictor of ideal cardiovascular health metrics, suggesting its utility as a simple tool in public health strategies for cardiovascular disease prevention.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Self-rated health may aid CV risk stratification; leaves open causal links and intervention effects.
INTRODUCTION: Both self‑rated health (SRH) and the cardiovascular health (CVH) metrics of the American Heart Association have been reported as predictors of cardiovascular events. However, a longitudinal study of the relationships between these metrics has not been conducted before. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the association between SRH and CVH metrics in a longitudinal study involving an Asian population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible participants were enrolled between 2009 and 2014. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the association between SRH and overall ideal CVH metrics as well as each ideal CVH metric at baseline and during follow‑up. Additionally, we classified participants into 3 groups according to the change in SRH after 3 years of follow‑up and analyzed the changes in ideal CVH metrics in these groups. RESULTS: Our study group consisted of 15 608 participants. After a mean follow‑up of 2.69 years, participants who classified their health as "Poor" or "Very Poor" had reduced odds ratios (ORs) for ideal CVH metrics, with ORs of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.54-0.85; P = 0.001) and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.37-0.96; P = 0.03) for "Poor" and "Very Poor" SRH, respectively. In contrast, the odds for increased ideal CVH metrics rose as SRH improved (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.07-1.36; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Changes in SRH ratings might accurately reflect changes in CVH metrics. Our longitudinal study demonstrated that SRH was significantly associated with the number of ideal CVH metrics. Our findings provide epidemiological evidence for future public health strategies targeting cardiovascular disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tseng et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Cardiovascular health (n=15,608). Poor self-rated health vs. Excellent self-rated health was evaluated on Ideal cardiovascular health metrics (5-7 metrics) at follow-up (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54-0.85, p=0.001). Poor self-rated health was significantly associated with reduced odds of having ideal cardiovascular health metrics at follow-up (OR 0.68) compared to excellent self-rated health.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: