Leilei Guo1, Shangshu Zhang2. 1. Section of Infection Control, Zhengzhou Central Hospital Affiliated to Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China. 2. Department of Disease Control and Prevention, Zhengzhou Central Hospital Affiliated to Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Observational studies evaluating the relationship between ideal cardiovascular health (CVH) metrics and risk of cardiovascular (CV) events and mortality yielded inconsistent results. HYPOTHESIS: Improvement in CVH metrics can result in substantial reductions in the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), stroke, and mortality. METHODS: We examined associations between ideal CVH metrics and CV events and mortality by conducting a meta-analysis of data from prospective cohort studies identified by searching PubMed and Web of Science from their inception to February 2017 and reviewing the reference lists of the retrieved articles. RESULTS: Thirteen prospective studies involving a total of 193 126 cohort members were included in this meta-analysis. When comparing the most to the least category of ideal CVH metrics, the overall relative risks (RRs) were 0.54 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-0.69) for all-cause mortality, 0.30 (95% CI: 0.18-0.51) for CV mortality, 0.22 (95% CI: 0.11-0.42) for CVD, and 0.33 (95% CI: 0.20-0.55) for stroke, respectively. A linear dose-response relationship was seen in all-cause and CV mortality. The risk decreased by 11% and 19% for each increase in ideal CVH metrics. For the analyses of ideal health status in relation to all-cause and CV mortality, significant results were obtained from smoking, diet, physical activity, plasma glucose levels, and blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Ideal CVH status, or even 1 point increase in CVH metrics, can result in substantial reductions in the risk of CVD, stroke, and mortality. Improving metrics of smoking, diet, physical activity, plasma glucose levels, and blood pressure will achieve the highest benefits.
BACKGROUND: Observational studies evaluating the relationship between ideal cardiovascular health (CVH) metrics and risk of cardiovascular (CV) events and mortality yielded inconsistent results. HYPOTHESIS: Improvement in CVH metrics can result in substantial reductions in the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), stroke, and mortality. METHODS: We examined associations between ideal CVH metrics and CV events and mortality by conducting a meta-analysis of data from prospective cohort studies identified by searching PubMed and Web of Science from their inception to February 2017 and reviewing the reference lists of the retrieved articles. RESULTS: Thirteen prospective studies involving a total of 193 126 cohort members were included in this meta-analysis. When comparing the most to the least category of ideal CVH metrics, the overall relative risks (RRs) were 0.54 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-0.69) for all-cause mortality, 0.30 (95% CI: 0.18-0.51) for CV mortality, 0.22 (95% CI: 0.11-0.42) for CVD, and 0.33 (95% CI: 0.20-0.55) for stroke, respectively. A linear dose-response relationship was seen in all-cause and CV mortality. The risk decreased by 11% and 19% for each increase in ideal CVH metrics. For the analyses of ideal health status in relation to all-cause and CV mortality, significant results were obtained from smoking, diet, physical activity, plasma glucose levels, and blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Ideal CVH status, or even 1 point increase in CVH metrics, can result in substantial reductions in the risk of CVD, stroke, and mortality. Improving metrics of smoking, diet, physical activity, plasma glucose levels, and blood pressure will achieve the highest benefits.
Authors: Aaron R Folsom; Hiroshi Yatsuya; Jennifer A Nettleton; Pamela L Lutsey; Mary Cushman; Wayne D Rosamond Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-04-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Yuling Hong; Darwin Labarthe; Dariush Mozaffarian; Lawrence J Appel; Linda Van Horn; Kurt Greenlund; Stephen Daniels; Graham Nichol; Gordon F Tomaselli; Donna K Arnett; Gregg C Fonarow; P Michael Ho; Michael S Lauer; Frederick A Masoudi; Rose Marie Robertson; Véronique Roger; Lee H Schwamm; Paul Sorlie; Clyde W Yancy; Wayne D Rosamond Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-01-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Chuanhui Dong; Tatjana Rundek; Clinton B Wright; Zane Anwar; Mitchell S V Elkind; Ralph L Sacco Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-05-22 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Quanhe Yang; Mary E Cogswell; W Dana Flanders; Yuling Hong; Zefeng Zhang; Fleetwood Loustalot; Cathleen Gillespie; Robert Merritt; Frank B Hu Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-03-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David Wormser; Stephen Kaptoge; Emanuele Di Angelantonio; Angela M Wood; Lisa Pennells; Alex Thompson; Nadeem Sarwar; Jorge R Kizer; Debbie A Lawlor; Børge G Nordestgaard; Paul Ridker; Veikko Salomaa; June Stevens; Mark Woodward; Naveed Sattar; Rory Collins; Simon G Thompson; Gary Whitlock; John Danesh Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-03-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Nzechukwu M Isiozor; Setor K Kunutsor; Ari Voutilainen; Sudhir Kurl; Jussi Kauhanen; Jari A Laukkanen Journal: Ann Med Date: 2019-07-12 Impact factor: 4.709
Authors: Joshua D Bundy; Hongyan Ning; Victor W Zhong; Amanda E Paluch; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; John T Wilkins; Norrina B Allen Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2020-06-30
Authors: Melissa Lamar; Robert S Wilson; Lei Yu; Christopher C Stewart; David A Bennett; Patricia A Boyle Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 4.776