Rachel Zmora1, Pamela J Schreiner2, Duke Appiah3, Donald M Lloyd-Jones4, Jamal S Rana5, Cora E Lewis6. 1. Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Electronic address: zmora005@umn.edu. 2. Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. 3. Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock. 4. Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. 5. Division of Research, Department of Cardiology, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland. 6. Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Calculation of a biological heart age offers an alternative to absolute risk for characterizing cardiovascular risk by describing risk relative to an individual with normal health. We examined risk factors contributing to differences between biological and chronological heart age in young adults. METHODS: The Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study included 2264 Black and White men and women who attended examination years 10 through 25. We estimated biological heart age using the nonlaboratory-based Framingham 10-year cardiovascular disease risk calculator. Trends in risk factors were examined cross-sectionally and longitudinally. RESULTS: Biological heart ages for Black participants were 5.6 years older than their chronological ages over 15 years (P < .001). In longitudinal analyses, urinary albumin-creatinine ratio and alcohol intake were statistically significantly related to higher biological compared with chronological heart age, whereas physical activity and education were statistically significantly related to negative heart age differences (P < .001). Trends were similar in cross-sectional analyses at all time points. CONCLUSIONS: Most risk factors driving biological heart age, including race, education, physical activity, and urinary albumin-creatinine ratio, contributed to heart age differences cross-sectionally and longitudinally suggesting that risk factors related to adverse biological aging are important at younger and older ages.
PURPOSE: Calculation of a biological heart age offers an alternative to absolute risk for characterizing cardiovascular risk by describing risk relative to an individual with normal health. We examined risk factors contributing to differences between biological and chronological heart age in young adults. METHODS: The Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study included 2264 Black and White men and women who attended examination years 10 through 25. We estimated biological heart age using the nonlaboratory-based Framingham 10-year cardiovascular disease risk calculator. Trends in risk factors were examined cross-sectionally and longitudinally. RESULTS: Biological heart ages for Black participants were 5.6 years older than their chronological ages over 15 years (P < .001). In longitudinal analyses, urinary albumin-creatinine ratio and alcohol intake were statistically significantly related to higher biological compared with chronological heart age, whereas physical activity and education were statistically significantly related to negative heart age differences (P < .001). Trends were similar in cross-sectional analyses at all time points. CONCLUSIONS: Most risk factors driving biological heart age, including race, education, physical activity, and urinary albumin-creatinine ratio, contributed to heart age differences cross-sectionally and longitudinally suggesting that risk factors related to adverse biological aging are important at younger and older ages.
Authors: Neil J Stone; Jennifer G Robinson; Alice H Lichtenstein; C Noel Bairey Merz; Conrad B Blum; Robert H Eckel; Anne C Goldberg; David Gordon; Daniel Levy; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Patrick McBride; J Sanford Schwartz; Susan T Shero; Sidney C Smith; Karol Watson; Peter W F Wilson Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Ralph B D'Agostino; Ramachandran S Vasan; Michael J Pencina; Philip A Wolf; Mark Cobain; Joseph M Massaro; William B Kannel Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-01-22 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: Paul K Whelton; Robert M Carey; Wilbert S Aronow; Donald E Casey; Karen J Collins; Cheryl Dennison Himmelfarb; Sondra M DePalma; Samuel Gidding; Kenneth A Jamerson; Daniel W Jones; Eric J MacLaughlin; Paul Muntner; Bruce Ovbiagele; Sidney C Smith; Crystal C Spencer; Randall S Stafford; Sandra J Taler; Randal J Thomas; Kim A Williams; Jeff D Williamson; Jackson T Wright Journal: Hypertension Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 9.897