| Literature DB >> 29562908 |
Sang Bae Lee1,2, Chul Woo Ahn1,2, Byoung Kwon Lee3, Shinae Kang1,2, Ji Sun Nam1,2, Ji Hong You1,2, Min Jin Kim1,2, Min Kyung Kim4, Jong Suk Park5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The triglyceride glucose (TyG) index has been suggested as a simple surrogate marker of insulin resistance. However, there are limited data regarding the association between the TyG index and arterial stiffness in adults. Therefore, we evaluated the relationship between the TyG index and arterial stiffness as measured based on brachial ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV) in Korean adults.Entities:
Keywords: Arterial stiffness; Insulin resistance; Pulse wave velocity; Triglyceride glucose index
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29562908 PMCID: PMC5863385 DOI: 10.1186/s12933-018-0692-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol ISSN: 1475-2840 Impact factor: 9.951
Clinical characteristics of the study population according to TyG index
| Q1 (lowest) | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 (highest) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | 897 | 896 | 898 | 896 | |
| Age (years) | 49.91 ± 9.83 | 52.88 ± 8.99 | 53.30 ± 8.77 | 52.03 ± 8.68 | < 0.01 |
| Sex (M/F) | 286/611 | 433/463 | 601/297 | 741/155 | < 0.01 |
| SBP (mmHg) | 114.60 ± 12.11 | 117.75 ± 11.94 | 120.67 ± 10.96 | 121.99 ± 10.61 | < 0.01 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 71.42 ± 8.33 | 73.68 ± 8.03 | 75.90 ± 7.18 | 77.14 ± 7.23 | < 0.01 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 21.82 ± 2.65 | 22.99 ± 3.02 | 23.89 ± 2.78 | 25.04 ± 2.69 | < 0.01 |
| FPG (mg/dL) | 85.49 ± 8.92 | 92.54 ± 9.97 | 96.87 ± 12.59 | 102.45 ± 18.17 | < 0.01 |
| TC (mg/dL) | 183.15 ± 33.16 | 192.48 ± 33.16 | 193.78 ± 34.35 | 200.77 ± 35.14 | < 0.01 |
| TG (mg/dL) | 55 (48–62) | 79 (72–88) | 111 (99–122) | 180 (153–226) | < 0.01 |
| LDL-C (mg/dL) | 109.47 ± 29.61 | 120.93 ± 30.02 | 123.14 ± 30.93 | 123.30 ± 31.76 | < 0.01 |
| HDL-C (mg/dL) | 58.60 ± 12.95 | 53.26 ± 12.02 | 47.59 ± 10.88 | 42.10 ± 8.62 | < 0.01 |
| TyG index | 7.73 ± 0.21 | 8.20 ± 0.11 | 8.57 ± 0.11 | 9.16 ± 0.28 | < 0.01 |
| HOMA-IR | 0.60 (0.41–0.91) | 0.87 (0.63–1.28) | 1.04 (0.77–1.52) | 1.37 (0.88–1.97) | < 0.01 |
| Smoking (%) | 38 (4.2) | 47 (5.2) | 80 (8.9) | 123 (13.7) | < 0.01 |
| Diabetes (%) | 1 (0.1) | 3 (0.3) | 20 (2.2) | 72 (8.0) | < 0.01 |
Data are the mean ± SD, number (percentage), or median (interquartile range)
SBP systolic blood pressure, DBP diastolic blood pressure, BMI body mass index, FPG fasting plasma glucose, TC total cholesterol, TG triglyceride, LDL-C low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, HDL-C high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, TyG triglyceride glucose, HOMA-IR homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance
Fig. 1Age-adjusted mean baPWV for the overall population, men, and women (*, †, ‡P < 0.01 vs Q1)
Correlation between the baPWV and clinical variables
|
| ||
|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.507 | < 0.01 |
| SBP | 0.355 | < 0.01 |
| DBP | 0.329 | < 0.01 |
| BMI | 0.062 | < 0.01 |
| TC | 0.039 | < 0.01 |
| LDL-C | 0.047 | < 0.01 |
| HDL-C | − 0.085 | < 0.01 |
| TG/HDL-C | 0.106 | < 0.01 |
| LDL-C/HDL-C | 0.079 | < 0.01 |
| Non HDL-C | 0.071 | < 0.01 |
| HOMA-IR | 0.188 | < 0.01 |
| TyG index | 0.189 | < 0.01 |
HOMA-IR data were log-transformed because of their non-normal distribution
PWV pulse wave velocity, SBP systolic blood pressure, DBP diastolic blood pressure, BMI body mass index, TC total cholesterol, LDL-C low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, HDL-C high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, TG triglyceride, HOMA-IR homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, TyG triglyceride glucose
Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for high baPWV according to TyG index and HOMA-IR
| OR (95% CI) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 (lowest) | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 (highest) | ||
| TyG index in men | |||||
| Model 1 | 1.00 | 1.47 (0.99–2.18) | 1.55 (1.07–2.26) | 2.31 (1.60–3.33) | < 0.01 |
| Model 2 | 1.00 | 1.55 (1.02–2.36) | 1.81 (1.20–2.71) | 2.92 (1.92–4.44) | < 0.01 |
| TyG index in women | |||||
| Model 1 | 1.00 | 1.30 (0.85–1.99) | 2.00 (1.33–3.01) | 2.35 (1.34–4.64) | < 0.01 |
| Model 2 | 1.00 | 1.28 (0.80–2.03) | 1.56 (0.97–2.52) | 1.84 (1.15–2.96) | < 0.01 |
| HOMA-IR in men | |||||
| Model 1 | 1.00 | 1.24 (0.85–1.83) | 1.39 (0.95–2.03) | 2.15 (1.48–3.11) | < 0.01 |
| Model 2 | 1.00 | 1.19 (0.79–1.78) | 1.32 (0.90–1.99) | 1.80 (1.17–2.78) | < 0.05 |
| HOMA-IR in women | |||||
| Model 1 | 1.00 | 1.12 (0.87–1.65) | 1.38 (0.97–1.85) | 2.13 (1.19–3.79) | < 0.01 |
| Model 2 | 1.00 | 1.09 (0.85–1.38) | 1.31 (0.88–2.01) | 1.46 (1.06–2.47) | < 0.05 |
Model 1: adjusted for age
Model 2: adjusted for age, SBP, BMI, LDL-C, HDL-C, diabetes mellitus, and menopause (women)