INTRODUCTION: Obesity is considered as a cardiovascular risk factor (CVRF). Anthropometric indexes as body mass index (BMI) or waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) may not reflect properly an increased risk due to obesity, but abdominal circumference is the most accepted as cardiovascular risk marker. As height is important in some instances as insulin resistance, is mandatory to take it into account to evaluate more accurately cardiovascular risk. OBJECTIVE: To test the utility of alternative anthropometrical indexes as cardiovascular risk markers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional study was developed with 883 subjects in East Portugal, having anthropometric measurements, blood pressure, laboratory tests, CVRF, and history reported. Cardiovascular risk was calculated according to modified Framingham method. RESULTS: All of the anthropometric indexes showed statistically significant correlation with cardiovascular risk, but WHR (r=0.48), followed by waist-to-height ratio (r=0.41) and abdominal circumference (r=0.45) were the most accurate. When data were analyzed by sex, waist-to-height ratio (r=0.46) was better in women and WHR (r=0.44) in men. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that waist-to-height ratio is as useful as others to estimate cardiovascular risk, being better among women.
INTRODUCTION:Obesity is considered as a cardiovascular risk factor (CVRF). Anthropometric indexes as body mass index (BMI) or waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) may not reflect properly an increased risk due to obesity, but abdominal circumference is the most accepted as cardiovascular risk marker. As height is important in some instances as insulin resistance, is mandatory to take it into account to evaluate more accurately cardiovascular risk. OBJECTIVE: To test the utility of alternative anthropometrical indexes as cardiovascular risk markers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional study was developed with 883 subjects in East Portugal, having anthropometric measurements, blood pressure, laboratory tests, CVRF, and history reported. Cardiovascular risk was calculated according to modified Framingham method. RESULTS: All of the anthropometric indexes showed statistically significant correlation with cardiovascular risk, but WHR (r=0.48), followed by waist-to-height ratio (r=0.41) and abdominal circumference (r=0.45) were the most accurate. When data were analyzed by sex, waist-to-height ratio (r=0.46) was better in women and WHR (r=0.44) in men. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that waist-to-height ratio is as useful as others to estimate cardiovascular risk, being better among women.