Bjarne Martens Nes1, Lars J Vatten, Javaid Nauman, Imre Janszky, Ulrik Wisløff. 1. 1K. G. Jebsen Center of Exercise in Medicine, Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, NORWAY; 2Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, NORWAY; and 3Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, SWEDEN.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is a strong predictor of future health, but measurements of CRF are time consuming and involve costly test procedures. We assessed whether a simple, non-exercise-based test of CRF predicted long-term all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, we used a previously published nonexercise test to estimate CRF in healthy men (n = 18,348) and women (n = 18,764) from the first HUNT study (1984-1986) in Norway. We used Cox regression to obtain HR for mortality during a mean follow-up of 24 yr. Assessment of model validity was performed by standard procedures of discrimination and calibration. RESULTS: CRF was inversely associated with all-cause and CVD mortality in men and women below 60 yr of age at baseline, after adjustment for confounders. For each MET-higher CRF (MET, approximately 3.5 mL·kg·min), HR for CVD mortality was 21% lower in both men (95% confidence interval (CI), 17%-26%) and women (95% CI, 12%-29%). HR for all-cause mortality was 15% (95% CI, 12%-17%) lower in men and 8% (95% CI, 3%-3%) lower in women for each MET-higher CRF. The ability of the model to discriminate mortality risk among participants below 60 yr was better for CRF (area under the curve (AUC), 0.70-0.77) compared with that for each variable that constituted the model (AUC, 0.55-0.63) and an aggregated sum of z-scores for each variable (AUC, 0.61-0.65). Comparison of observed and predicted risk indicated good model calibration. CONCLUSIONS: This method of assessing CRF is feasible and practically useful in primary care for identification of apparently healthy individuals at increased risk of premature CVD disease and all-cause mortality.
PURPOSE:Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is a strong predictor of future health, but measurements of CRF are time consuming and involve costly test procedures. We assessed whether a simple, non-exercise-based test of CRF predicted long-term all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, we used a previously published nonexercise test to estimate CRF in healthy men (n = 18,348) and women (n = 18,764) from the first HUNT study (1984-1986) in Norway. We used Cox regression to obtain HR for mortality during a mean follow-up of 24 yr. Assessment of model validity was performed by standard procedures of discrimination and calibration. RESULTS: CRF was inversely associated with all-cause and CVD mortality in men and women below 60 yr of age at baseline, after adjustment for confounders. For each MET-higher CRF (MET, approximately 3.5 mL·kg·min), HR for CVD mortality was 21% lower in both men (95% confidence interval (CI), 17%-26%) and women (95% CI, 12%-29%). HR for all-cause mortality was 15% (95% CI, 12%-17%) lower in men and 8% (95% CI, 3%-3%) lower in women for each MET-higher CRF. The ability of the model to discriminate mortality risk among participants below 60 yr was better for CRF (area under the curve (AUC), 0.70-0.77) compared with that for each variable that constituted the model (AUC, 0.55-0.63) and an aggregated sum of z-scores for each variable (AUC, 0.61-0.65). Comparison of observed and predicted risk indicated good model calibration. CONCLUSIONS: This method of assessing CRF is feasible and practically useful in primary care for identification of apparently healthy individuals at increased risk of premature CVD disease and all-cause mortality.
Authors: Yen How Tan; Jun Pei Lim; Wee Shiong Lim; Fei Gao; Louis L Y Teo; See Hooi Ewe; Bryan M H Keng; Ru San Tan; Woon-Puay Koh; Angela S Koh Journal: Obes Facts Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 4.807
Authors: Angela S Koh; Fei Gao; Ru S Tan; Liang Zhong; Shuang Leng; Xiaodan Zhao; Kevin T Fridianto; Jianhong Ching; Si Y Lee; Bryan M H Keng; Tee Joo Yeo; Shu Y Tan; Hong C Tan; Chin T Lim; Woon-Puay Koh; Jean-Paul Kovalik Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Farshid Daneshvar; Michael Weinreich; Danial Daneshvar; Michael Sperling; Chadi Salmane; Harout Yacoub; James Gabriels; Thomas McGinn; Marianne C Smith Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2017-02
Authors: Xuemei Sui; Virginia J Howard; Michelle N McDonnell; Linda Ernstsen; Matthew L Flaherty; Steven P Hooker; Carl J Lavie Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 7.616