Key result
High waist circumference variability links to ~139% greater risk of major cardiovascular events in HFpEF.
Why the study?
Previous studies hardly evaluated the association of variability of BMI or waist circumference with clinical adverse events and the effect of weight cycling on prognosis in patients with HFpEF.
Does weight cycling increase the risk of clinical adverse events in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction?
Cohort (n=3,146)
Yes
Does weight cycling increase the risk of clinical adverse events in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction?
High variability in BMI and waist circumference (weight cycling) is associated with significantly increased risks of adverse clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF.
Waist circumference variability was associated with higher CV risk in HFpEF; leaves open whether stabilizing weight improves outcomes.
Background Previous studies hardly evaluated the association of variability of body mass index (BMI) or waist circumference with clinical adverse events and investigated whether weight cycling had an effect on the prognosis of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods This study was a post-hoc analysis of TOPCAT. Three outcomes were evaluated: the primary endpoint, cardiovascular disease (CVD) death, and heart failure hospitalization. Among them, CVD death and hospitalization were outcomes of heart failure. Kaplan–Meier curves were used to describe the cumulative risk of outcome and were tested using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95%CIs for outcomes. We also performed a subgroup analysis, and several subgroups were compared. Results A total of 3,146 patients were included. In the Kaplan–Meier curves, the coefficients of variation of both BMI and waist circumference were grouped according to quartiles, with the Q4 group having the highest cumulative risk (log-rank P < 0.001). In the coefficient of BMI variation and the outcomes, the HRs for group Q4 of coefficient of variation of BMI were 2.35 (95%CI: 1.82, 3.03) for the primary endpoint, 2.40 (95%CI: 1.69, 3.40) for death, and 2.33 (95%CI: 1.68, 3.22) for HF hospitalization in model 3 (fully adjusted model) compared with group Q1. In the coefficient of waist circumference variation and the outcomes, group Q4 had increased hazard of the primary endpoint [HR: 2.39 (95%CI: 1.84, 3.12)], CVD death [HR: 3.29 (95%CI: 2.28, 4.77)], and HF hospitalization [HR: 1.98 (95%CI 1.43, 2.75)] in model 3 (fully adjusted model) compared with group Q1. In the subgroup analysis, there was a significant interaction in the diabetes mellitus subgroup (P for interaction = 0.0234). Conclusion Weight cycling had a negative effect on the prognosis of patients with HFpEF. The presence of comorbid diabetes weakened the relationship between waist circumference variability and clinical adverse events.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tan et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (n=3,146). High variability in waist circumference or body mass index (weight cycling) vs. Low variability (lowest quartile) was evaluated on Composite of cardiovascular mortality, aborted cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for the management of heart failure (HR 2.39, 95% CI 1.84-3.12, p=<0.001). High variability in waist circumference (weight cycling) significantly increased the risk of the primary composite cardiovascular endpoint (HR 2.39) compared to low variability in patients with HFpEF.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: