Key result
Higher waist-to-height ratio linked to ~31% higher risk of myocardial infarction.
Why the study?
Several indices have been developed to assess abdominal adiposity, but the risk associated with each index varies across populations and there is no consensus on which anthropometric indicator best predicts myocardial infarction and mortality.
Does waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) or other anthropometric obesity indicators predict myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality in middle-aged Swedish male automotive industry workers?
Cohort (n=959)
Does waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) or other anthropometric obesity indicators predict myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality in middle-aged Swedish male automotive industry workers?
Among six anthropometric indicators evaluated over 28 years in middle-aged Swedish men, waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) emerged as the most reliable independent predictor of myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality after adjusting for traditional cardiovascular risk factors, though differences were marginal.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Anthropometric indicators may associate with long-term MI and mortality in male workers; hypothesis-generating for refined occupational risk models.
Background Overweight, (body mass index (BMI), kg/m2) 25–30 and obesity (BMI 30+) have long been linked to an increased risk of myocardial infarction and mortality. To better assess abdominal adiposity, several indices have been developed. However, the risk associated with each index can vary across different populations. Methods This study aims to investigate which body measurement, if any, exhibits the strongest associations with MI, and mortality. In 1993, a cohort of 1,000 randomly selected middle-aged Swedish men participated in a nurse-led health examination. Body measurements were recorded together alongside blood pressure readings, and a fasting blood test was conducted. A follow-up study, spanning 28 years, utilized data from the national Myocardial Infarction Register (Swedeheart) and mortality data from the Swedish Cause of Death Register. The obesity indices included body mass index, waist circumference (WC), waist-to-height ratio (WHtR), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), sagittal abdominal diameter (SAD), and sagittal abdominal diameter-to-height ratio (SADHtR). Cox proportional hazard models were employed to analyze the z-scores of the six body measurements both before and after adjusting for covariates, with outcomes assessed for first-time myocardial infarction (MI) and mortality. Results Data were collected for 959 men. Significant correlations were found between the six body measurements, all were associated with cardiovascular disease risk factors, myocardial infarction, and mortality. However, after adjusting for the traditional risk factors, the association with cardiovascular endpoints was diminished or vanished. WHtR emerged as a more reliable indicator, with hazard ratios (HR) of 1.31 (95% CI 1.07-1.62) for myocardial infarction and 1.27 (95% CI 1.08-1.49) for all-cause mortality although the differences were marginal. Discussion There is currently no consensus on which obesity indicator should be the preferred predictor of cardiovascular risk. In this study, the WHtR emerged as the more reliable predictor, albeit with marginal clinical significance. Conclusions In this population, after adjustment for traditional risk factors, WHtR proved to be a more reliable predictor for MI and mortality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ian et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Overweight and obesity / cardiovascular risk (n=959). Six anthropometric obesity indicators (BMI, WC, WHtR, WHR, SAD, SADHtR; with WHtR highlighted) vs. Other anthropometric indicators / per z-score increase was evaluated on First-time myocardial infarction (MI) and all-cause mortality (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.07-1.62). Waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) predicted myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality after adjusting for traditional risk factors.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: