Isabela M Bensenor1, Alessandra C Goulart2, Itamar S Santos1, Márcio S Bittencourt2, Alexandre C Pereira3, Raul D Santos4, Khurram Nasir5, Ron Blankstein6, Paulo A Lotufo1. 1. Centro de Pesquisa Clínica e Epidemiológica, Hospital Universitário, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Faculdade Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 2. Centro de Pesquisa Clínica e Epidemiológica, Hospital Universitário, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Centro de Pesquisa Clínica e Epidemiológica, Hospital Universitário, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Laboratory of Genetics and Molecular Cardiology, Heart Institute (InCor), University of Sao Paulo Medical School, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 4. Centro de Pesquisa Clínica e Epidemiológica, Hospital Universitário, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Lipid Clinic Heart Institute (InCor), University of São Paulo Medical School Hospital, São Paulo, Brazil. 5. South Beach Preventive Cardiology Center, University of Miami, Miami, FL. 6. Cardiovascular Division and Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our goal was to evaluate cross-sectionally the association between ideal risk factor (IRF) profile and the presence and severity of subclinical atherosclerosis measured as coronary artery calcium (CAC) in the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health. METHODS: We included 4,077 participants with no prior history of cardiovascular disease aged 35 to 74 years who underwent CAC measurement. The 2010 Task Force of the American Heart Association cutoffs were used to define the ideal level of smoking, physical activity, diet, blood pressure, glucose/cholesterol levels, and body mass index. RESULTS: Participants were categorized according the number of IRF: 0 to 1 (n = 1,025, 25.1%), 2 (n = 1,200, 29.4%), 3 to 4 (n = 1,551, 38.1%), or 5 to 7 (n = 301, 7.4%). Compared to individuals with 0 to 1 IRF, the odds ratio of participants with 2 IRFs presenting with CAC >0 (compared to 0), ≥100 (compared to <100), and ≥400 (compared to <400) was 0.75 (95% CI 0.62-0.91), 0.64 (0.49-0.84), and 0.75 (0.49-1.15), respectively. Similarly, the odds ratios of CACs >0, ≥100, and ≥400 in individuals with 3 to 4 IRFs were 0.59 (95% CI 0.48-0.71), 0.46 (0.34-0.62), and 0.50 (0.30-0.83), respectively, and, for individuals with 5 to 7 IRFs, were 0.36 (95% CI 0.24-0.56), 0.22 (0.09-0.55), and 0.20 (0.03-1.45), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with an IRF profile have lower CAC when compared to subjects with fewer controlled risk factors. However, even among individuals with 5 to 7 IRFs, it is possible to find a CAC higher than zero reflecting that measures of IRF do not fully account for all factors that resulted in coronary artery disease.
BACKGROUND: Our goal was to evaluate cross-sectionally the association between ideal risk factor (IRF) profile and the presence and severity of subclinical atherosclerosis measured as coronary artery calcium (CAC) in the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health. METHODS: We included 4,077 participants with no prior history of cardiovascular disease aged 35 to 74 years who underwent CAC measurement. The 2010 Task Force of the American Heart Association cutoffs were used to define the ideal level of smoking, physical activity, diet, blood pressure, glucose/cholesterol levels, and body mass index. RESULTS:Participants were categorized according the number of IRF: 0 to 1 (n = 1,025, 25.1%), 2 (n = 1,200, 29.4%), 3 to 4 (n = 1,551, 38.1%), or 5 to 7 (n = 301, 7.4%). Compared to individuals with 0 to 1 IRF, the odds ratio of participants with 2 IRFs presenting with CAC >0 (compared to 0), ≥100 (compared to <100), and ≥400 (compared to <400) was 0.75 (95% CI 0.62-0.91), 0.64 (0.49-0.84), and 0.75 (0.49-1.15), respectively. Similarly, the odds ratios of CACs >0, ≥100, and ≥400 in individuals with 3 to 4 IRFs were 0.59 (95% CI 0.48-0.71), 0.46 (0.34-0.62), and 0.50 (0.30-0.83), respectively, and, for individuals with 5 to 7 IRFs, were 0.36 (95% CI 0.24-0.56), 0.22 (0.09-0.55), and 0.20 (0.03-1.45), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with an IRF profile have lower CAC when compared to subjects with fewer controlled risk factors. However, even among individuals with 5 to 7 IRFs, it is possible to find a CAC higher than zero reflecting that measures of IRF do not fully account for all factors that resulted in coronary artery disease.
Authors: Mahmoud Al Rifai; Philip Greenland; Michael J Blaha; Erin D Michos; Khurram Nasir; Michael D Miedema; Joseph Yeboah; Veit Sandfort; Alexis C Frazier-Wood; Steven Shea; Joao Ac Lima; Moyses Szklo; Wendy S Post; Roger S Blumenthal; John W McEvoy Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2017-11-11 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Isabela M Bensenor; Alessandra C Goulart; Alexandre C Pereira; André R Brunoni; Airlane Alencar; Raul D Santos; Márcio S Bittencourt; Rosa W Telles; Luciana Andrade Carneiro Machado; Sandhi Maria Barreto; Bianca de Almeida-Pititto; Carolina Porto Silva Janovsky; José Augusto Sgarbi; William R Tebar; Vandrize Meneghini; Fernando Barbosa Junior; Ana Cristina de Medeiros Ribeiro; Sandra Gofinet Pasoto; Rosa Maria R Pereira; Eloísa Bonfá; Aytan M Sipahi; Itamar de S Santos; Paulo A Lotufo Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 2.365
Authors: Andreia M Miranda; Josiane Steluti; Alessandra C Goulart; Isabela M Benseñor; Paulo A Lotufo; Dirce M Marchioni Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-03-24 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Sina Kianoush; Mohammad Yawar Yakoob; Mahmoud Al-Rifai; Andrew P DeFilippis; Marcio S Bittencourt; Bruce B Duncan; Isabela M Bensenor; Aruni Bhatnagar; Paulo A Lotufo; Michael J Blaha Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-06-24 Impact factor: 5.501
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: Priscila T P Rocco; Isabela M Bensenor; Rosane H Griep; Sandhi M Barreto; Arlinda B Moreno; Airlane P Alencar; Paulo A Lotufo; Itamar S Santos Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 5.501