Key result
Achieving ≥5 ideal cardiovascular health metrics is linked to ~68% lower MACE risk versus ≤2.
Why the study?
Rate advancement period (RAP) may enhance communication regarding the benefits of achieving ideal cardiovascular health (ICVH), prompting evaluation of ICVH adherence and cardiovascular risk timing in a population-based cohort.
Does greater adherence to ideal cardiovascular health metrics reduce the incidence of major cardiovascular events in a Mediterranean population-based cohort?
Cohort (n=3,826)
Yes
Does greater adherence to ideal cardiovascular health metrics reduce the incidence of major cardiovascular events in a Mediterranean population-based cohort?
Hazard Ratio: 0.32 (95% CI 0.17–0.6)
Absolute Event Rate: 9.12% vs 58.07%
p-value: p=<0.001
Greater adherence to ideal cardiovascular health metrics is associated with a significantly lower risk of major cardiovascular events and may delay cardiovascular risk by over 14 years.
Supports CVH promotion in Mediterranean cohorts; extends prior data but remains hypothesis-generating pending trials.
Background The American Heart Association recommends Life’s Simple 7 as ideal cardiovascular health (ICVH) to reduce cardiovascular risk. Rate advancement period (RAP), a useful tool to quantify and communicate exposure impact on risks, may enhance communication about the benefits of achieving ICVH. We aimed to examine whether greater adherence to ICVH metrics was associated with reduced incidence of cardiovascular risk in a population-based cohort and estimate its impact on the timing of occurrence using RAP. Methods Prospective analyses of 3826 participants, initially free from cardiovascular disease at baseline, enrolled in the Vascular Risk in Navarra Study (RIVANA), a Mediterranean population-based cohort of Spanish adults. ICVH metrics were defined using participants’ baseline information as follows: never-smoker or quitting > 12 months ago, body mass index < 25 kg/m2, ≥ 150 min/week of moderate physical activity or equivalent, healthy dietary pattern (≥ 9 points on a validated 14-item Mediterranean diet adherence screener), untreated cholesterol < 200 mg/dL, untreated blood pressure < 120/80 mmHg, and untreated fasting blood glucose < 100 mg/dL. Participants were assigned 1 point for each achieved metric and were grouped according to their number of accumulated metrics in ≤ 2, 3, 4, and ≥ 5. The primary endpoint was major cardiovascular events (composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes). Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) and RAPs with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) adjusted for potential confounders were calculated. Results During a median follow-up of 12.8 years (interquartile range 12.3–13.1), a total of 194 primary endpoints were identified. Compared to participants with ≤ 2 ideal metrics, HR (95% CI) for major cardiovascular events among participants meeting ≥ 5 metrics was 0.32 (0.17–0.60) with RAP (95% CI) of − 14.4 years (− 22.9, − 5.9). Conclusions Greater adherence to ICVH metrics was associated with lower cardiovascular risk among Spanish adults of the RIVANA cohort. Adherence to ideal metrics may substantially delay cardiovascular risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fernández-Lázaro et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Free from cardiovascular disease (n=3,826). Adherence to ≥ 5 ideal cardiovascular health metrics vs. Adherence to ≤ 2 ideal cardiovascular health metrics was evaluated on Major cardiovascular events (composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes) (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.17-0.60, p=<0.001). Meeting ≥ 5 ideal cardiovascular health metrics was associated with a 68% lower risk of major cardiovascular events compared to meeting ≤ 2 metrics (HR 0.32).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: