INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Heart age (the predicted age of a person's vascular system based on their cardiovascular risk factor profile) and its comparison with chronological age represent a new way to express risk for developing cardiovascular disease. This study estimates heart age and differences between heart age and chronological age (excess heart age) and examines racial, sociodemographic, and regional disparities in heart age among U.S. adults aged 30-74 years. METHODS: Weighted 2011 and 2013 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data were applied to the sex-specific non-laboratory-based Framingham risk score models, stratifying the results by age and race/ethnic group, educational and income level, and state. These results were then translated into age-standardized heart age values, mean excess heart age was calculated, and the findings were compared across groups. RESULTS: Overall, average predicted heart age for adult men and women was 7.8 and 5.4 years older than their chronological age, respectively. Statistically significant (p<0.05) racial/ethnic, sociodemographic, and regional differences in heart age were observed: heart age among non-Hispanic black men (58.7 years) and women (58.9 years) was greater than other racial/ethnic groups, including non-Hispanic white men (55.3 years) and women (52.5 years). Excess heart age was lowest for men and women in Utah (5.8 and 2.8 years, respectively) and highest in Mississippi (10.1 and 9.1 years, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICE: The predicted heart age among U.S. adults aged 30-74 years was significantly higher than their chronological age. Use of predicted heart age might 1) simplify risk communication and motivate more persons to live heart-healthy lifestyles and better comply with recommended therapeutic interventions, and 2) motivate communities to implement programs and policies that support cardiovascular health.
INTRODUCTION:Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Heart age (the predicted age of a person's vascular system based on their cardiovascular risk factor profile) and its comparison with chronological age represent a new way to express risk for developing cardiovascular disease. This study estimates heart age and differences between heart age and chronological age (excess heart age) and examines racial, sociodemographic, and regional disparities in heart age among U.S. adults aged 30-74 years. METHODS: Weighted 2011 and 2013 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data were applied to the sex-specific non-laboratory-based Framingham risk score models, stratifying the results by age and race/ethnic group, educational and income level, and state. These results were then translated into age-standardized heart age values, mean excess heart age was calculated, and the findings were compared across groups. RESULTS: Overall, average predicted heart age for adult men and women was 7.8 and 5.4 years older than their chronological age, respectively. Statistically significant (p<0.05) racial/ethnic, sociodemographic, and regional differences in heart age were observed: heart age among non-Hispanic black men (58.7 years) and women (58.9 years) was greater than other racial/ethnic groups, including non-Hispanic white men (55.3 years) and women (52.5 years). Excess heart age was lowest for men and women in Utah (5.8 and 2.8 years, respectively) and highest in Mississippi (10.1 and 9.1 years, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICE: The predicted heart age among U.S. adults aged 30-74 years was significantly higher than their chronological age. Use of predicted heart age might 1) simplify risk communication and motivate more persons to live heart-healthy lifestyles and better comply with recommended therapeutic interventions, and 2) motivate communities to implement programs and policies that support cardiovascular health.
Authors: Rachel Zmora; Pamela J Schreiner; Duke Appiah; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Jamal S Rana; Cora E Lewis Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Matthew D Ritchey; Fleetwood Loustalot; Hilary K Wall; Claudia A Steiner; Cathleen Gillespie; Mary G George; Janet S Wright Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-05-02 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Carissa Bonner; Natalie Raffoul; Tanya Battaglia; Julie Anne Mitchell; Carys Batcup; Bill Stavreski Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-08-07 Impact factor: 5.428