Why the study?
The relationship between anthropometric parameters and long-term mortality after AMI remains debated, particularly regarding the obesity paradox where higher BMI appears associated with better outcomes. Whether assessing abdominal adiposity can resolve this paradox by better reclassifying long-term risk was unclear.
Does assessing abdominal adiposity markers improve the prediction of 8-year mortality compared to traditional anthropometric metrics in patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction?
Cohort (n=12,241)
Yes
Does assessing abdominal adiposity markers improve the prediction of 8-year mortality compared to traditional anthropometric metrics in patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction?
Abdominal adiposity metrics such as the waist circumference-to-BMI ratio independently outperform standard BMI in predicting 8-year survival after acute myocardial infarction, resolving the apparent obesity paradox via a U-shaped BMI mortality relationship.
Introduction The relationship between anthropometric parameters and long-term mortality following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains debated. This is particularly true regarding the "obesity paradox," where a higher body mass index (BMI) appears to be associated with better outcomes. Whether assessing abdominal adiposity can resolve this paradox by better reclassifying long-term risk remains unclear. Purpose To investigate the association of multiple anthropometric measurements with long-term post-AMI mortality using the FAST-MI program. Methods The FAST-MI program consists of three nationwide French surveys conducted 5 years apart (2005, 2010 and 2015), including consecutive patients admitted for AMI with up to 8-year follow-up. We used two categories of anthropometric measurements: traditional metrics (height, weight, and BMI) and abdominal adiposity markers (waist circumference [WC], WC/BMI ratio, WC/height ratio, and body roundness index [BRI]). We assessed their relationship with 8-year mortality by using multivariable Cox models. Results A total of 12,241patients were included for weight, height and BMI analyses, and 5,968 for analyses using WC. After adjustment, neither weight (aHR 0.999 per kg, 95%CI 0.997-1.002, p=0.46) nor BMI (aHR 1.004 per kg/m2, 95%CI 0.996-1.011, p=0.32) were associated with 8-year mortality; while height showed an inverse association with 8-year mortality (aHR 0.992 per cm, 95%CI 0.887-0.997, p=0.003). All abdominal adiposity markers were associated with increased 8-year mortality after AMI; WC (aHR 1.007 per unit, 95%CI 1.004-1.020), BRI (aHR 1.058 per unit, 1.036-1.081), and WC/BMI (aHR 1.32 per unit, 95%CI 1.19-1.47) (all p<0.001). In a sensitivity analysis excluding patients with BMI <18.5 kg/m2, BMI was associated with 8-year mortality (aHR 1.013 per kg/m2, 95%CI 1.005-1.020, p=0.001), confirming a U-curve effect, whereas findings for abdominal metrics remained unchanged. When BMI and WC/BMI were analyzed together, both the U-shaped extremes of BMI (<18.5 and >35 kg/m²) and the highest WC/BMI quintile (derived specifically within each sex and BMI category) emerged as independent predictors of 8-year mortality (Figure). Conclusion After AMI, the apparent "obesity paradox" is explained by a U-shaped relationship between BMI and mortality, rather than a true protective effect of excess weight. Abdominal adiposity metrics like WC/BMI independently outperform standard BMI in predicting long-term survival. These results highlight the critical need to incorporate central obesity measurements into routine post-MI patient management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mesnier et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Acute myocardial infarction (n=12,241). Abdominal adiposity markers (WC/BMI ratio, waist circumference, BRI) and traditional anthropometric metrics (BMI, weight, height) vs. Lower adiposity / standard BMI categories (per unit increase) was evaluated on 8-year all-cause mortality (assessed here per unit increase in WC/BMI ratio) (aHR 1.32, 95% CI 1.19-1.47, p=<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: