ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Insulin resistance is associated with a cluster of abnormalities that increase cardiovascular disease (CVD). Several indices have been proposed to identify individuals who are insulin resistant, and thereby at increased CVD risk. The aim of this study was to compare the abilities of 3 indices to accomplish that goal: 1) plasma triglyceride × glucose index (TG × G); 2) plasma triglyceride/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio (TG/HDL-C); and 3) Metabolic Syndrome (MetS). METHODS AND RESULTS: In a population sample of 723 individuals (486 women and 237 men, 50 ± 16 and 51 ± 16 years old, respectively), baseline demographic and metabolic variables known to increase CVD risk and incident CVD were compared among individuals defined as high vs. low risk by: TG × G; TG/HDL-C; or MetS. CVD risk profiles appeared comparable in high risk subjects, irrespective of criteria. Crude incidence of CVD events was increased in high risk subjects: 12.2 vs. 5.3% subjects/10 years, p = 0.005 defined by TG/HDL-C; 13.4 vs. 5.3% subjects/10 years, p = 0.002 defined by TG × G; and 13.4% vs. 4.5% of subjects/10 years, p < 0.001 in subjects with the MetS. The area under the ROC curves to predict CVD were similar, 0.66 vs. 0.67 for TG/HDL-C and TG × G, respectively. However, when adjusted by age, sex and multiple covariates, hazard ratios for incident CVD were significantly increased in high risk patients classified by either TG/HDL-C ratio (2.18, p = 0.021) or MetS (1.93, p = 0.037), but not by TG × G index (1.72, p = 0.087). CONCLUSION: Although the 3 indices identify CVD risk comparably, the TG × G index seems somewhat less effective at predicting CVD.
Subject(s)
Blood Glucose/analysis , Cholesterol, HDL/blood , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/etiology , Hypertension/etiology , Insulin Resistance , Metabolic Syndrome/etiology , Triglycerides/blood , Adult , Aged , Area Under Curve , Biomarkers/blood , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/blood , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/diagnosis , Female , Healthy Volunteers , Humans , Hypertension/blood , Hypertension/diagnosis , Male , Metabolic Syndrome/blood , Metabolic Syndrome/diagnosis , Middle Aged , Predictive Value of Tests , ROC Curve , Risk Assessment , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
We evaluated the consequences of excluding the first of three blood pressure (BP) readings in different settings: a random population sample (POS, n=1525), a general practice office (GPO, n=942) and a specialized hypertension center (SHC, n=462). Differences between systolic and diastolic BP (SBP and DBP) estimates obtained including and excluding the first reading were compared and their correlation with ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) was estimated. The samples were divided into quartiles according to the difference between the third and the first SBP (3-1ΔSBP). SBP decreased through sequential readings, 3-1ΔSBP was -5.5 ± 9.7 mm Hg (P<0.001), -5.1 ± 10.4 mm Hg (P<0.001) and -6.1 ± 9.3 mm Hg (P<0.001) for POS, GPO and SHC, respectively. However, individuals included in the top quartile of 3-1ΔSBP showed their highest values on the third reading. The mean SBP estimate was significantly higher excluding the first reading (P<0.001), but the differences among both approaches were small (1.5-1.6 mm g). Moreover, the correlation between SBP values including and excluding the first reading and daytime ABPM were comparable (r = 0.69 and 0.68, respectively). Similar results were observed for DBP. In conclusion, our study does not support the notion of discarding the first BP measurement and suggests that it should be measured repeatedly, regardless the first value.
