C P Baena1, P A Lotufo2, I S Santos2, A C Goulart3, M S Bittencourt3, B B Duncan4, S Liu5, I M Benseñor2. 1. Center for Clinical and Epidemiologic Research, Hospital Universitario, São Paulo, Brazil; School of Medicine, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil. 2. Center for Clinical and Epidemiologic Research, Hospital Universitario, São Paulo, Brazil; School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Center for Clinical and Epidemiologic Research, Hospital Universitario, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Postgraduate Studies Program in Epidemiology, School of Medicine, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil. 5. School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, RD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: It is uncertain whether neck circumference can be a risk indicator for subclinical atherosclerosis. We aimed to investigate their relationships measured by coronary artery calcium (CAC) and common carotid intima-media thickness (cc-IMT) with neck circumference in ELSA-Brasil. METHODS AND RESULTS: In cross-sectional and sex-specific analyses of 2266 women (50.6 ± 8.4 yrs) and 1886 men (50.7 ± 9.0 yrs) with both cc-IMT and CAC, free from previous cardiovascular disease at baseline, we built logistic models using diverse cut-off points for CAC score (0 vs > 0, < 100 vs ≥ 100, < 400 vs ≥ 400 Agatston units) and cc-IMT (< 75 th percentile vs ≥ 75 th; <90th percentile vs ≥ 90 th) as dependent variables, after which adjustments for age and traditional cardiovascular risk factors were made. Mean neck circumference was 33.6 (± 2.4 cm) for women and 38.8 (± 2.6 cm) for men. In fully adjusted models including sociodemographic, cardiovascular risk factors and body-mass index and waist circumference, for each 1 standard deviation increase in neck circumference we found an odds ratio (OR, 95% CI) for IMT above the 75th percentile of (1.52, 1.16; 1.99) for women and (1.66, 1.28; 2.14) for men, and above the 90th cc-IMT percentile [1.66 (1.19; 2.32) for men but not for women [1.21 (0.80; 1.82)]. We found no association between neck circumference and CAC using different cut-off points (p > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSION: Neck circumference was significantly and independently associated with cc-IMT but not with CAC in women and men, indicating a possible effect of perivascular fat tissue on atherosclerosis.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: It is uncertain whether neck circumference can be a risk indicator for subclinical atherosclerosis. We aimed to investigate their relationships measured by coronary artery calcium (CAC) and common carotid intima-media thickness (cc-IMT) with neck circumference in ELSA-Brasil. METHODS AND RESULTS: In cross-sectional and sex-specific analyses of 2266 women (50.6 ± 8.4 yrs) and 1886 men (50.7 ± 9.0 yrs) with both cc-IMT and CAC, free from previous cardiovascular disease at baseline, we built logistic models using diverse cut-off points for CAC score (0 vs > 0, < 100 vs ≥ 100, < 400 vs ≥ 400 Agatston units) and cc-IMT (< 75 th percentile vs ≥ 75 th; <90th percentile vs ≥ 90 th) as dependent variables, after which adjustments for age and traditional cardiovascular risk factors were made. Mean neck circumference was 33.6 (± 2.4 cm) for women and 38.8 (± 2.6 cm) for men. In fully adjusted models including sociodemographic, cardiovascular risk factors and body-mass index and waist circumference, for each 1 standard deviation increase in neck circumference we found an odds ratio (OR, 95% CI) for IMT above the 75th percentile of (1.52, 1.16; 1.99) for women and (1.66, 1.28; 2.14) for men, and above the 90th cc-IMT percentile [1.66 (1.19; 2.32) for men but not for women [1.21 (0.80; 1.82)]. We found no association between neck circumference and CAC using different cut-off points (p > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSION: Neck circumference was significantly and independently associated with cc-IMT but not with CAC in women and men, indicating a possible effect of perivascular fat tissue on atherosclerosis.
Authors: Bin Yan; Hanzhi Du; Juan Zhao; Di Wu; Jie Wang; Guang Yang; Mengchang Wang Journal: Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 3.168
Authors: Nora E Straznicky; Mariee T Grima; Carolina I Sari; Nina Eikelis; Paul J Nestel; John B Dixon; Gavin W Lambert; Markus P Schlaich; Sarah E Phillips; Elisabeth A Lambert Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2017-04-06 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Valéria Sutti Nunes; Isabela M Bensenor; Paulo A Lotufo; Marisa Passarelli; Edna Regina Nakandakare; Eder Carlos Rocha Quintão Journal: Biosci Rep Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: B Almeida-Pititto; I T Silva; A C Goulart; M I H Fonseca; M S Bittencourt; R D Santos; M Blaha; S Jones; P P Toth; K Kulakarni; P A Lotufo; I M Bensenor; S R G Ferreira Journal: Diabetol Metab Syndr Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 3.320
Authors: Michaela Eickemberg; Leila Denise Alves Ferreira Amorim; Maria da Conceição Chagas de Almeida; Estela Maria Leão de Aquino; Maria de Jesus Mendes da Fonseca; Itamar de Souza Santos; Dora Chor; Maria de Fátima Sander Diniz; Sandhi Maria Barreto; Sheila Maria Alvim de Matos Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 2.000