BACKGROUND: Carotid artery intima-media thickness (IMT) is greater in adults with elevated metabolic risk profiles. However, the influence of body mass index (BMI) or waist circumference (WC) on the relationship between IMT and metabolic risk is unclear. METHODS: Adults from the Bogalusa Heart Study were classified as normal weight, overweight, or obese and into WC categories (men, low <94 cm, moderate 94-101.9 cm, high ≥102 cm; women, low <80 cm, moderate 80-87.9 cm, high ≥88 cm). Elevated metabolic risk was defined by cardiovascular risk factor clustering (≥2 abnormal risk factors or insulin resistance (upper quartile of homeostasis model of insulin resistance). Carotid ultrasound measurements were obtained and mean IMT was calculated. General linear models compared IMT between elevated versus normal metabolic risk groups, adjusting for sex, age, race/ethnicity, and either BMI or WC category. RESULTS: Adults were 24-43 years of age (n = 991) and 41% had elevated metabolic risk (42% male, 28% African American, 38% obese). IMT (mm) was greater in adults with elevated metabolic risk (0.83 ± 0.007) versus normal risk (0.80 ± 0.006) whether adjusted by BMI or WC (both P < 0.0005). IMT was greater in adults with elevated compared to normal metabolic risk within normal-weight (0.84 ± 0.016 vs. 0.79 ± 0.008; P = 0.002), and obese adults (0.86 ± 0.009 vs. 0.80 ± 0.01; P = 0.03), but not significantly different between risk groups in overweight adults. Similar results were found when stratified by WC category. CONCLUSION: Adults with elevated metabolic risk have greater IMT than those with normal risk in normal-weight, overweight, low WC, and high WC, but not significant for overweight or moderate WC categories.
BACKGROUND: Carotid artery intima-media thickness (IMT) is greater in adults with elevated metabolic risk profiles. However, the influence of body mass index (BMI) or waist circumference (WC) on the relationship between IMT and metabolic risk is unclear. METHODS: Adults from the Bogalusa Heart Study were classified as normal weight, overweight, or obese and into WC categories (men, low <94 cm, moderate 94-101.9 cm, high ≥102 cm; women, low <80 cm, moderate 80-87.9 cm, high ≥88 cm). Elevated metabolic risk was defined by cardiovascular risk factor clustering (≥2 abnormal risk factors or insulin resistance (upper quartile of homeostasis model of insulin resistance). Carotid ultrasound measurements were obtained and mean IMT was calculated. General linear models compared IMT between elevated versus normal metabolic risk groups, adjusting for sex, age, race/ethnicity, and either BMI or WC category. RESULTS: Adults were 24-43 years of age (n = 991) and 41% had elevated metabolic risk (42% male, 28% African American, 38% obese). IMT (mm) was greater in adults with elevated metabolic risk (0.83 ± 0.007) versus normal risk (0.80 ± 0.006) whether adjusted by BMI or WC (both P < 0.0005). IMT was greater in adults with elevated compared to normal metabolic risk within normal-weight (0.84 ± 0.016 vs. 0.79 ± 0.008; P = 0.002), and obese adults (0.86 ± 0.009 vs. 0.80 ± 0.01; P = 0.03), but not significantly different between risk groups in overweight adults. Similar results were found when stratified by WC category. CONCLUSION: Adults with elevated metabolic risk have greater IMT than those with normal risk in normal-weight, overweight, low WC, and high WC, but not significant for overweight or moderate WC categories.
Authors: G De Pergola; M Ciccone; N Pannacciulli; M Modugno; M Sciaraffia; A Minenna; P Rizzon; R Giorgino Journal: Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord Date: 2000-07
Authors: Priya Krishnan; Appathurai Balamurugan; Elaine Urbina; Sathanur R Srinivasan; Gene Bond; Rong Tang; Gerald S Berenson Journal: J La State Med Soc Date: 2003 May-Jun
Authors: C Snehalatha; V Vijay; R Suresh Mohan; K Satyavani; S Sivasankari; T Megha; S Radhika; A Ramachandran Journal: Diabetes Metab Res Rev Date: 2001 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.876
Authors: Elaine M Urbina; Sathanur R Srinivasan; Rong Tang; M Gene Bond; Lyn Kieltyka; Gerald S Berenson Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2002-11-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Lyn Kieltyka; Elaine M Urbina; Rong Tang; M Gene Bond; Sathanur R Srinivasan; Gerald S Berenson Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Amit Frishberg; Inge van den Munckhof; Niels P Riksen; Irit Gat-Viks; Rob Ter Horst; Kiki Schraa; Leo Ab Joosten; Joost Hw Rutten; Adrian C Iancu; Ioana M Dregoesc; Bogdan A Tigu; Mihai G Netea Journal: Elife Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 8.140