| Literature DB >> 31120983 |
Teng Wang1, Hualei Sun1, Huina Ge1, Xinxin Liu1, Fei Yu1, Han Han1, Jun Wang1, Wenjie Li1.
Abstract
Previous studies have suggested that vitamin D is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD), however, the relationship between vitamin D levels and CVD risk is still unclear. The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship of serum concentration of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) with CVD in rural residents of Henan province of China. Basic information and medical history were gathered through face-to-face surveys from July 2013 to August 2015, and biochemical indicators were gathered in a laboratory setting. Logistic and restricted cubic splines regression analyses were used to estimate odd ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) of CVD. A total of 1078 participants were included, the mean serum 25(OH)D concentration was determined to be 25 ± 18 ng/ml, with 54.45% of the participants presenting vitamin D deficiency [25(OH)D < 20 ng/mL]. Moreover, the prevalence of CVD was 59.28% in the vitamin D deficient group, which was higher than in the insufficient (48.55%) and sufficient groups (52.78%). After adjusting for potential confounders, compared with the deficient group, the ORs (95%CI) of CVDs were 0.68 (0.50, 0.91) in the insufficient group and 0.81 (0.56, 1.16) in the sufficient group. A nonlinear (U-shaped) association was observed between the risk of CVD and 25(OH)D concentration. Further research suggested that the risk of CVD was higher in males than in females. In conclusion, a U-shape association between serum levels of 25(OH)D and the risk of CVD was identified in our study, suggesting a nonlinear relationship between vitamin D with the prevalence of CVD.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31120983 PMCID: PMC6532968 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217311
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
General characteristics of participants.
| Variable | Non-CVD (n = 484) | CVD(n = 594) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 202(41.74%) | 226(38.05%) | 0.218 | |
| 56.44 ± 11.83 | 62.51 ± 11.06 | <0.001 | |
| 0.321 | |||
| Married/cohabitation | 424(87.60%) | 508(85.52%) | |
| Single/divorcement | 60(12.40%) | 86(14.48%) | |
| 0.430 | |||
| Junior high school and below | 432(89.26%) | 521(87.71%) | |
| High school and above | 52(10.74%) | 73(12.29%) | |
| 24.67 ± 3.43 | 26.18 ± 3.68 | <0.001 | |
| 118.48 ± 10.62 | 141.85 ± 17.69 | <0.001 | |
| 75.18± 7.42 | 85.23 ± 10.51 | <0.001 | |
| 25 ± 19 | 24 ± 18 | 0.203 | |
| Never | 340(70.25%) | 442(74.41%) | 0.128 |
| Current/former | 144(29.75%) | 152(25.59%) | |
| 0.021 | |||
| Yes | 91(18.80%) | 81(13.64%) | |
| No | 393(81.20%) | 513(86.36%) | |
| 0.091 | |||
| <25g/d | 383(79.13%) | 494(83.16%) | |
| ≥25g/d | 101(20.87%) | 100(16.84%) | |
| 62(12.81%) | 75(12.63%) | 0.928 | |
| <0.001 | |||
| Mild | 175(36.16%) | 300(50.51%) | |
| Moderate | 81(16.73%) | 101(17.00%) | |
| Severe | 228(47.11%) | 193(32.49%) | |
| 0.89 ± 0.07 | 0.92 ± 0.07 | <0.001 | |
| 327(67.56%) | 473(79.63%) | <0.001 | |
| 0.54 ± 0.06 | 0.57 ± 0.07 | <0.001 | |
| 347(71.69%) | 507(85.35%) | <0.001 | |
| 128(26.45%) | 222(37.37%) | <0.001 | |
| 6.10 ± 2.89 | 6.35 ± 2.67 | 0.131 | |
| 4.60 ± 1.01 | 4.75 ± 0.99 | 0.016 | |
| 1.67 ± 1.18 | 1.95 ± 1.51 | 0.001 | |
| 1.23 ± 0.31 | 1.25 ± 0.33 | 0.378 | |
| 2.61 ± 0.80 | 2.68 ± 0.78 | 0.171 |
Values are mean ± standard deviation or n (%).
CVD: cardiovascular disease, BMI: body mass index, SBP: systolic blood pressure, DBP: diastolic blood pressure, WHR: waist-to-hip ratio, WHtR: waist-to-height ratio, T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus, GLU: glucose, TG: triglycerides, TC: total cholesterol, HDL-C: high-density lipoprotein, LDL-C: low-density lipoprotein.
Fig 1The prevalence of CVD in different serum 25(OH)D levels.
Odd ratio (95% confidence interval) for the risk of CVD according to the levels of serum 25(OH)D.
| Serum 25(OH)D levels | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Vitamin D | Deficiency | Insufficient | Sufficient |
| Unadjusted | 1.00(0.99,1.00) | 1.00 | 0.65(0.49,0.85) | 0.77(0.55,1.07) |
| Model 1 | 1.00(0.99,1.00) | 1.00 | 0.65(0.49,0.86) | 0.80(0.57,1.14) |
| Model 2 | 1.00(0.99,1.00) | 1.00 | 0.67(0.50,0.90) | 0.80(0.56,1.14) |
| Model 3 | 1.00(0.99,1.00) | 1.00 | 0.68(0.50,0.91) | 0.81(0.56,1.16) |
Model 1: Adjusted for gender, age.
Model 2: Additional adjusted education level, marital status, smoking, alcohol drinking, tea, high-fat diet, physical activity, BMI groups.
Model 3: Additional adjusted T2DM.
Fig 2The risk of CVD according to the serum 25(OH)D concentration.
Serum 25(OH)D concentration and risk of CVD in the participants. OR (solid line) and 95% CI (dashed lines) from logistic regression using restricted cubic splines. Adjusted for age, gender, education, marital status, smoking, drinking, high-fat diet, physical activity, BMI groups and T2DM (model 3). The light blue area indicates the distribution of serum 25(OH)D concentrations in participants.
Fig 3Adjusted OR (95%CI) for CVD in subgroup analysis.
Subgroup analysis of serum 25(OH)D levels and risk of CVD. Circles represent the ORs, horizontal bars represent 95% CI. Adjusted for the covariates of age, gender, education, smoking, alcohol drinking, high-fat diet, physical activity, BMI groups and T2DM (model 3).