Enrique G Artero1, Andrew S Jackson2, Xuemei Sui3, Duck-Chul Lee4, Daniel P O'Connor2, Carl J Lavie5, Timothy S Church6, Steven N Blair7. 1. Department of Education, Area of Physical Education and Sport, University of Almería, Almería, Spain; Department of Exercise Science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. Electronic address: artero@ual.es. 2. Department of Health and Human Performance, University of Houston, Houston, Texas. 3. Department of Exercise Science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. 4. Department of Kinesiology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. 5. Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Ochsner Clinical School-The University of Queensland School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana; Preventive Medicine Laboratory, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 6. Preventive Medicine Laboratory, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 7. Department of Exercise Science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the capacity of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) algorithms without exercise testing to predict the risk for nonfatal cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and disease-specific mortality. BACKGROUND: Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is not routinely measured, as it requires trained personnel and specialized equipment. METHODS: Participants were 43,356 adults (21% women) from the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study, followed up between 1974 and 2003. Estimated CRF was determined on the basis of sex, age, body mass index, waist circumference, resting heart rate, physical activity level, and smoking status. Actual CRF was measured by a maximal treadmill test. Risk reduction per 1-metabolic equivalent increase, discriminative ability (c statistic), and net reclassification improvement were determined. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 14.5 years, 1,934 deaths occurred, 627 due to CVD. In a subsample of 18,095 participants, 1,049 cases of nonfatal CVD events were ascertained. After adjustment for potential confounders, both measured and estimated CRF were inversely associated with risks for all-cause mortality, CVD-related mortality and nonfatal CVD events in men, and all-cause mortality and nonfatal CVD events in women. The risk reduction per 1-metabolic equivalent increase ranged from approximately 10% to 20%. Measured CRF had a slightly better discriminative ability (c statistic) than did estimated CRF, and the net reclassification improvement values in measured CRF versus estimated CRF were 12.3% in men (p < 0.05) and 19.8% in women (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These CRF algorithms utilized information routinely collected to obtain an estimate of CRF, which provides a valid indication of health status. In addition to identifying people at risk, this method can provide more appropriate exercise recommendations that reflect initial CRF levels.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the capacity of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) algorithms without exercise testing to predict the risk for nonfatal cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and disease-specific mortality. BACKGROUND:Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is not routinely measured, as it requires trained personnel and specialized equipment. METHODS:Participants were 43,356 adults (21% women) from the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study, followed up between 1974 and 2003. Estimated CRF was determined on the basis of sex, age, body mass index, waist circumference, resting heart rate, physical activity level, and smoking status. Actual CRF was measured by a maximal treadmill test. Risk reduction per 1-metabolic equivalent increase, discriminative ability (c statistic), and net reclassification improvement were determined. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 14.5 years, 1,934 deaths occurred, 627 due to CVD. In a subsample of 18,095 participants, 1,049 cases of nonfatal CVD events were ascertained. After adjustment for potential confounders, both measured and estimated CRF were inversely associated with risks for all-cause mortality, CVD-related mortality and nonfatal CVD events in men, and all-cause mortality and nonfatal CVD events in women. The risk reduction per 1-metabolic equivalent increase ranged from approximately 10% to 20%. Measured CRF had a slightly better discriminative ability (c statistic) than did estimated CRF, and the net reclassification improvement values in measured CRF versus estimated CRF were 12.3% in men (p < 0.05) and 19.8% in women (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These CRF algorithms utilized information routinely collected to obtain an estimate of CRF, which provides a valid indication of health status. In addition to identifying people at risk, this method can provide more appropriate exercise recommendations that reflect initial CRF levels.
Authors: Russell V Luepker; Fred S Apple; Robert H Christenson; Richard S Crow; Stephen P Fortmann; David Goff; Robert J Goldberg; Mary M Hand; Allan S Jaffe; Desmond G Julian; Daniel Levy; Teri Manolio; Shanthi Mendis; George Mensah; Andrzej Pajak; Ronald J Prineas; K Srinath Reddy; Veronique L Roger; Wayne D Rosamond; Eyal Shahar; A Richey Sharrett; Paul Sorlie; Hugh Tunstall-Pedoe Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-11-10 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Emmanuel Stamatakis; Mark Hamer; Gary O'Donovan; George David Batty; Mika Kivimaki Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2012-05-03 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Martha Gulati; Dilip K Pandey; Morton F Arnsdorf; Diane S Lauderdale; Ronald A Thisted; Roxanne H Wicklund; Arfan J Al-Hani; Henry R Black Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-09-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Samia Mora; Rita F Redberg; Yadong Cui; Maura K Whiteman; Jodi A Flaws; A Richey Sharrett; Roger S Blumenthal Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-09-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Mercedes R Carnethon; Samuel S Gidding; Rodrigo Nehgme; Stephen Sidney; David R Jacobs; Kiang Liu Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-12-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Gary J Balady; Martin G Larson; Ramachandran S Vasan; Eric P Leip; Christopher J O'Donnell; Daniel Levy Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-09-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Amjad M Ahmed; Waqas T Qureshi; Sherif Sakr; Michael J Blaha; Clinton A Brawner; Jonathan K Ehrman; Steven J Keteyian; Mouaz H Al-Mallah Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Joshua Z Willey; Yeseon Park Moon; Ayesha Sherzai; Ying Kuen Cheung; Ralph L Sacco; Mitchell S V Elkind Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2015-04-18 Impact factor: 3.797
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