| Literature DB >> 21846399 |
M Mohsen Ibrahim1, Ahmed A Elamragy, Hanan Girgis, Mona A Nour.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines stressed the need to adopt different values of waist circumference (WC) measurements to define abdominal obesity in different ethnic groups. The aim of this study is to identify WC cutoff points in normotensive and hypertensive subjects which are diagnostic of abdominal obesity in a Middle Eastern population and the prevalence of abdominal obesity in a nationwide sample.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21846399 PMCID: PMC3166916 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2261-11-53
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord ISSN: 1471-2261 Impact factor: 2.298
Basic characteristics of the study subjects
| NT men (n = 311) | HT men (n = 670) | NT women (n = 443) | HT women (n = 889) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years)a | 46.5 ± 13.7 | 55.1 ± 13.1 | 42 ± 11.4 | 53.9 ± 11.6 |
| WC (cm)a | 88 ± 14.2 | 95 ± 14.4 | 89.6 ± 14.7 | 95.7 ± 15.9 |
| BMI (kg/m2)a | 25.9 ± 5 | 28.4 ± 6.1 | 29.2 ± 6.7 | 31.7 ± 7.5 |
| SES (%) | ||||
| Low | 41.8 | 36.4 | 45.8 | 44.8 |
| Mid | 49.5 | 52.3 | 46 | 46.2 |
| High | 8.7 | 11.3 | 8.1 | 9 |
| Geographic region (%) | ||||
| Urban | 71.1 | 73.6 | 70.4 | 73.1 |
| Rural | 28.9 | 26.4 | 29.6 | 26.9 |
| Risk factors (%) | ||||
| DM | 7.7 | 26.9 | 8.5 | 24.2 |
| LVH | 5.9 | 19.2 | 3.1 | 16.2 |
| Decreased HDL-cholesterol | 51.2 | 52.1 | 70.6 | 69.8 |
| Elevated LDL-cholesterol | 28.5 | 36.1 | 35.8 | 47.3 |
| Elevated TG | 29.3 | 46.1 | 24.8 | 39 |
a The values are represented as means ± SD
Metabolic risk factors were defined according to the IDF criteria (9). Elevated TG ≥ 150 mg/dL; reduced HDL-cholesterol < 40 mg/dL for men and < 50 mg/dL for women; elevated LDL-cholesterol ≥ 130 mg/dL; DM when fasting blood glucose ≥ 126 mg/dL or postprandial blood glucose ≥ 200 mg/dL; LVH when LVMI > 125 gm/m2 in men and > 110 gm/m2 in women.
Prevalence of risk factors (%) in different WC categories among NT and HT men and women
| Risk Factors | WC category (cm) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| < 75 | 75- | 85- | 95- | 105- | > 114.9 | |
| DM | 2.1 | 2.5 | 6.8 | 7.5 | 23.1 | 41.7 |
| LVH | 4.3 | 9.0 | 6.6 | 3.8 | 0 | 0 |
| High TG | 4.3 | 17.3 | 34.2 | 48.1 | 42.3 | 75.0 |
| Low HDL | 44.7 | 45.7 | 50.0 | 58.5 | 61.5 | 58.3 |
| High LDL | 17.0 | 21.0 | 29.6 | 46.2 | 19.2 | 50.0 |
| DM | 6.9 | 11.9 | 14.0 | 20.7 | 21.8 | 34.7 |
| LVH | 30.6 | 24.3 | 15.8 | 15.0 | 21.0 | 24.3 |
| High TG | 12.1 | 24.7 | 48.0 | 52.3 | 62.7 | 63.3 |
| Low HDL | 34.5 | 42.9 | 52.6 | 56.9 | 58.2 | 51.0 |
| High LDL | 22.4 | 27.4 | 35.1 | 36.7 | 43.9 | 49.0 |
| DM | 4.4 | 4.3 | 8.9 | 12.0 | 8.8 | 20.0 |
| LVH | 2.9 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 3.4 | 6.3 | 18.2 |
| High TG | 8.8 | 16.1 | 25.9 | 29.3 | 47.1 | 52.0 |
| Low HDL | 66.2 | 67.7 | 70.5 | 71.7 | 85.3 | 72.0 |
| High LDL | 22.1 | 31.2 | 34.2 | 40.4 | 52.9 | 45.8 |
| DM | 16.0 | 16.0 | 17.9 | 27.2 | 32.6 | 32.7 |
| LVH | 20.8 | 19.2 | 11.1 | 16.0 | 15.0 | 21.3 |
| High TG | 9.3 | 27.5 | 37.3 | 46.0 | 47.2 | 50.5 |
| Low HDL | 54.7 | 63.4 | 71.1 | 70.3 | 75.0 | 77.8 |
| High LDL | 40.5 | 38.5 | 38.7 | 56.0 | 49.7 | 58.6 |
Linear trends in plasma lipid and glucose levels (mg/dl) and LVMI (gm/m2) in relation to different WC groups among NT and HT men and women
| Risk Factors | WC category (cm) | Linearity | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| < 75 | 75- | 85- | 95- | 105- | > 114.9 | p | |
| HDL | 42 ± 10 | 41 ± 9 | 41 ± 10 | 38 ± 9 | 37 ± 7 | 40 ± 14 | 0.013 |
| LDL | 107 ± 24 | 105 ± 32 | 115 ± 32 | 128 ± 35 | 111 ± 27 | 152 ± 73 | < 0.001 |
| TG | 106 ± 30 | 110 ± 41 | 154 ± 92 | 155 ± 66 | 172 ± 86 | 200 ± 71 | < 0.001 |
| FBS | 86 ± 13 | 88 ± 16 | 92 ± 25 | 97 ± 42 | 112 ± 54 | 119 ± 35 | < 0.001 |
| PP | 104 ± 28 | 111 ± 42 | 120 ± 46 | 117 ± 63 | 140 ± 72 | 140 ± 47 | 0.003 |
| LVMI | 89.7 ± 21 | 89.4 ± 25 | 89.3 ± 23 | 87.5 ± 21 | 89.4 ± 16 | 93.9 ± 16 | 0.997 |
| HDL | 44 ± 9 | 42 ± 10 | 40 ± 10 | 39 ± 10 | 39 ± 10 | 40 ± 11 | 0.021 |
| LDL | 108 ± 39 | 110 ± 33 | 118 ± 37 | 123 ± 42 | 129 ± 43 | 124 ± 35 | 0.003 |
| TG | 102 ± 38 | 132 ± 62 | 164 ± 88 | 177 ± 104 | 181 ± 84 | 194 ± 103 | < 0.001 |
| FBS | 90 ± 16 | 108 ± 71 | 102 ± 42 | 105 ± 48 | 112 ± 52 | 123 ± 68 | 0.018 |
| PPBs | 111 ± 32 | 128 ± 64 | 135 ± 70 | 145 ± 73 | 146 ± 73 | 167 ± 69 | 0.005 |
| LVMI | 109.3 ± 35 | 101.6 ± 33 | 100.4 ± 29 | 99.95 ± 29 | 102.8 ± 32 | 114.2 ± 54 | 0.727 |
| HDL | 45 ± 11 | 44 ± 10 | 44 ± 11 | 44 ± 10 | 40 ± 9 | 45 ± 11 | 0.152 |
| LDL | 108 ± 28 | 115 ± 43 | 119 ± 37 | 120 ± 35 | 134 ± 38 | 123 ± 36 | 0.002 |
| TG | 99 ± 40 | 114 ± 48 | 124 ± 57 | 148 ± 98 | 142 ± 64 | 173 ± 90 | < 0.001 |
| FBS | 95 ± 47 | 93 ± 22 | 96 ± 39 | 104 ± 98 | 97 ± 34 | 114 ± 52 | 0.032 |
| PPBs | 116 ± 51 | 118 ± 42 | 116 ± 41 | 131 ± 61 | 113 ± 34 | 147 ± 89 | 0.043 |
| LVMI | 73.7 ± 16 | 76.3 ± 18 | 75.7 ± 16 | 77.8 ± 16 | 85.1 ± 17 | 90.4 ± 25 | < 0.001 |
| HDL | 48 ± 12 | 46 ± 11 | 45 ± 10 | 44 ± 10 | 43 ± 10 | 42 ± 11 | < 0.001 |
| LDL | 120 ± 38 | 122 ± 36 | 123 ± 39 | 139 ± 45 | 137 ± 45 | 148 ± 50 | < 0.001 |
| TG | 106 ± 44 | 137 ± 71 | 148 ± 67 | 161 ± 81 | 160 ± 75 | 168 ± 76 | < 0.001 |
| FBS | 96 ± 21 | 102 ± 31 | 106 ± 46 | 122 ± 69 | 123 ± 63 | 127 ± 63 | < 0.001 |
| PPBs | 135 ± 53 | 131 ± 47 | 147 ± 72 | 159 ± 88 | 159 ± 79 | 167 ± 82 | < 0.001 |
| LVMI | 94.5 ± 38 | 92.6 ± 32 | 89.4 ± 24 | 93.3 ± 25 | 92.4 ± 25 | 95.2 ± 22 | 0.638 |
HDL: High density lipoprotein cholesterol
LDL: Low density lipoprotein cholesterol
TC: Total cholesterol
FBs: fasting blood sugar
PPBs: post prandial blood sugar.
Figure 1WC cutoff point by ROC curve in NT men. AUC = 0.78, p < 0.001 CI: 0.685- 0.876.
Figure 2WC cutoff point by ROC curve in HT men. AUC = 0.668, p < 0.001 CI: 0.618- 0.718.
Figure 3WC cutoff point by ROC curve in NT women. AUC = 0.697, p < 0.001 CI: 0.619- 0.776.
Figure 4WC cutoff point by ROC curve in HT women. AUC = 0.63, p < 0.001 CI: 0.587- 0.673.
Figure 5Prevalence of Abdominal Obesity(%) in Different Age Decades in Normotensive and Hypertensive Men.
Figure 6Prevalence of Abdominal Obesity(%) in Different Age Decades in Normotensive and Hypertensive Women.
Prevalence of abdominal obesity by the new cutoff points in different socioeconomic classes and urban/rural areas among NT and HT men and women
| Low SES | Mid SES | High SES | Urban | Rural | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NT and HT males | 121 (32.7) | 271 (55.1) | 71 (69.6) | 393 (56.3) | 70 (26.3) |
| NT females | 62 (31.2) | 103 (52.3) | 20 (55.6) | 153 (50.8) | 32 (24.4) |
| HT females | 163 (41.5) | 270 (68.2) | 52 (65.8) | 419 (66.4) | 66 (27.8) |
NT and HT males were grouped together because they had similar WC cutoff point for abdominal obesity.