4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Cardiovascular risk assessment in the metabolic syndrome: results from the Prospective Cardiovascular Munster (PROCAM) Study

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBESITY
卷 32, 期 -, 页码 S11-S16

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ijo.2008.29

关键词

epidemiology; body mass index; metabolic syndrome; coronary heart disease; myocardial infarction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: We aimed (1) to construct a modified PROCAM risk algorithm, which incorporates BMI/waist circumference in a model for predicting coronary events; (2) to evaluate how accurate this and the previously established PROCAM risk algorithm predict coronary risk in individuals with metabolic syndrome. Design: Prospective Cardiovascular Munster (PROCAM) Study, a prospective study of men and women at work in the northwest of Germany. Subjects: A total of 7134 men aged 35-65 years at study entry. Measurements: On the basis of 404 major coronary events (defined as nonfatal MI and coronary deaths), which occurred within 10 years of follow-up, a modified PROCAM risk algorithm was constructed by incorporating BMI/waist circumference as fixed variable in a Cox proportional hazards model for predicting coronary events. The metabolic syndrome was defined according to the latest recommendations proposed by the NCEP-ATP III Panel. Results: Men who were classified as having the metabolic syndrome (n = 2325, prevalence: 32.6%) were 2.59-fold more likely to experience a major coronary event within 10 years of follow-up than men not having the metabolic syndrome. In men with metabolic syndrome, the observed major coronary event rate of 9.6% corresponded well with their estimated global risk according to the modified BMI-based PROCAM risk algorithm (10.2%). Comparative calculations performed with the previously published fully adjusted PROCAM algorithm yielded very similar results. Conclusion: Both PROCAM algorithms provide very accurate means to ascertain coronary risk in male patients with metabolic syndrome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据