Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Endocrinol Invest. 2016 Nov;39(11):1337-1346. Epub 2016 Aug 29.

Comparison of coronary heart disease risk among four diagnostic definitions of metabolic syndrome.

Author information

1
Department of Clinical Study and Informatics, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo, 162-8655, Japan. tsuzuki@kitasato-u.ac.jp.
2
Department of Public Health, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1, Minami-ku, Kitasato Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0374, Japan. tsuzuki@kitasato-u.ac.jp.
3
Department of Endocrinology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, 100730, China.
4
Taiyuan Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Taiyuan, 030000, China.
5
Taiyuan People Hospital, Taiyuan, 030000, China.
6
Department of Endocrinology and Diabetes Mellitus, Fukuoka University Hospital, Fukuoka, 814-0180, Japan.
7
Department of Clinical Study and Informatics, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo, 162-8655, Japan.
8
Department of Diabetes and Metabolic Medicine, Center Hospital, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo, 162-8655, Japan.
9
Department of Gene Diagnostics and Therapeutics, Research Institute, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo, 162-8655, Japan.
10
Department of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Hypertension, National Hospital Organization Kyoto Medical Center, 1-1 Mukaihata-cho, Fukakusa, Fushimi-ku, Kyoto, 612-8555, Japan. mnaruse@kyotolan.hosp.go.jp.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is now well known as one of the major risk factors for coronary heart disease (CHD). Currently, there are several methods used to define MetS. The aim of this study was to determine to what extent current MetS definition reflects CHD risk using the probability of CHD in 10 years based on Framingham risk score algorithms.

METHODS:

A total of 7575 adults, aged 16-93 years (2532 men and 5043 women), were recruited. We conducted a cross-sectional health survey in China using MetS criteria from four different definitions: modified National Cholesterol Education Program-Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP-ATP III), International Diabetes Federation (IDF), Chinese and Japanese.

RESULTS:

Differences in the prevalence of MetS by each definition were small in males (22.9-25.9 %), whereas in females, MetS was three times more prevalent using the IDF definition (29.1 %) versus the Japanese definition (9.7 %). Framingham risk scores in participants with MetS were significantly higher than in those without MetS by all definition criteria (p < 0.001). The CHD risk scores for participants with MetS by each definition showed similar values in males (range 11.5-12.1 %) with no significant differences among definitions. Conversely, in females with MetS the risk score for CHD was low (range 3.5-4.3 %) by each MetS definition.

CONCLUSIONS:

These findings suggest that further studies are required to establish appropriate criteria of MetS in females.

KEYWORDS:

China; Framingham risk score; International Diabetes Federation (IDF); Japan; Metabolic syndrome; NCEP-ATP III

PMID:
27572249
DOI:
10.1007/s40618-016-0538-1
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center