Key result
Optimal CVH scores linked to up to ~64% lower HF risk vs inadequate scores.
Why the study?
The association between cardiovascular health metrics and the risk of heart failure in a Finnish population was not established.
Do optimal cardiovascular health metrics reduce the risk of incident heart failure in an aging population?
Population
2385 men and 825 women without baseline HF in Finland
Comparison
Optimal vs average vs inadequate cardiovascular health scores
Design
Prospective population-based cohort study
Follow-up
Median 27 years for men, and 18 years for women
Authors
Loading...
Optimal CVH metrics were associated with lower HF risk; supports prevention emphasis but leaves causal effects open for trials.
Cohort (n=3,210)
Do optimal cardiovascular health metrics reduce the risk of incident heart failure in an aging population?
Effect estimate: HR 0.36 (men), HR 0.52 (women) (95% CI 0.26-0.49 (men), 0.31-0.89 (women))
p-value: p=<0.01 (men), 0.02 (women)
Maintaining optimal cardiovascular health metrics is associated with a substantially lower long-term risk of developing heart failure.
Isiozor et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Heart failure (n=3,210). Optimal cardiovascular health (CVH) scores vs. Inadequate CVH scores was evaluated on Heart failure (HR 0.36 (men), HR 0.52 (women), 95% CI 0.26-0.49 (men), 0.31-0.89 (women), p=<0.01 (men), 0.02 (women)). Optimal cardiovascular health scores were associated with a lower risk of heart failure compared with inadequate scores in both men (HR 0.36; 95% CI 0.26-0.49) and women (HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.31-0.89).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: