TY - JOUR
T1 - Prediction of Cardiovascular Mortality by Estimated Cardiorespiratory Fitness Independent of Traditional Risk Factors
T2 - The HUNT Study
AU - Nauman, Javaid
AU - Nes, Bjarne M.
AU - Lavie, Carl J.
AU - Jackson, Andrew S.
AU - Sui, Xuemei
AU - Coombes, Jeff S.
AU - Blair, Steven N.
AU - Wisløff, Ulrik
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research
PY - 2017/2/1
Y1 - 2017/2/1
N2 - Objective To assess the predictive value of estimated cardiorespiratory fitness (eCRF) and evaluate the additional contribution of traditional risk factors in cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality prediction. Participants and Methods The study included healthy men (n=18,721) and women (n=19,759) aged 30 to 74 years. A nonexercise algorithm estimated cardiorespiratory fitness. Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the primary (CVD mortality) and secondary (all-cause, ischemic heart disease, and stroke mortality) end points. The added predictive value of traditional CVD risk factors was evaluated using the Harrell C statistic and net reclassification improvement. Results After a median follow-up of 16.3 years (range, 0.04-17.4 years), there were 3863 deaths, including 1133 deaths from CVD (734 men and 399 women). Low eCRF was a strong predictor of CVD and all-cause mortality after adjusting for established risk factors. The C statistics for eCRF and CVD mortality were 0.848 (95% CI, 0.836-0.861) and 0.878 (95% CI, 0.862-0.894) for men and women, respectively, increasing to 0.851 (95% CI, 0.839-0.863) and 0.881 (95% CI, 0.865-0.897), respectively, when adding clinical variables. By adding clinical variables to eCRF, the net reclassification improvement of CVD mortality was 0.014 (95% CI, −0.023 to 0.051) and 0.052 (95% CI, −0.023 to 0.127) in men and women, respectively. Conclusion Low eCRF is independently associated with CVD and all-cause mortality. The inclusion of traditional clinical CVD risk factors added little to risk discrimination and did not improve the classification of risk beyond this simple eCRF measurement, which may be proposed as a practical and cost-effective first-line approach in primary prevention settings.
AB - Objective To assess the predictive value of estimated cardiorespiratory fitness (eCRF) and evaluate the additional contribution of traditional risk factors in cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality prediction. Participants and Methods The study included healthy men (n=18,721) and women (n=19,759) aged 30 to 74 years. A nonexercise algorithm estimated cardiorespiratory fitness. Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the primary (CVD mortality) and secondary (all-cause, ischemic heart disease, and stroke mortality) end points. The added predictive value of traditional CVD risk factors was evaluated using the Harrell C statistic and net reclassification improvement. Results After a median follow-up of 16.3 years (range, 0.04-17.4 years), there were 3863 deaths, including 1133 deaths from CVD (734 men and 399 women). Low eCRF was a strong predictor of CVD and all-cause mortality after adjusting for established risk factors. The C statistics for eCRF and CVD mortality were 0.848 (95% CI, 0.836-0.861) and 0.878 (95% CI, 0.862-0.894) for men and women, respectively, increasing to 0.851 (95% CI, 0.839-0.863) and 0.881 (95% CI, 0.865-0.897), respectively, when adding clinical variables. By adding clinical variables to eCRF, the net reclassification improvement of CVD mortality was 0.014 (95% CI, −0.023 to 0.051) and 0.052 (95% CI, −0.023 to 0.127) in men and women, respectively. Conclusion Low eCRF is independently associated with CVD and all-cause mortality. The inclusion of traditional clinical CVD risk factors added little to risk discrimination and did not improve the classification of risk beyond this simple eCRF measurement, which may be proposed as a practical and cost-effective first-line approach in primary prevention settings.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85006790624&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85006790624&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.10.007
DO - 10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.10.007
M3 - Article
C2 - 27866655
AN - SCOPUS:85006790624
SN - 0025-6196
VL - 92
SP - 218
EP - 227
JO - Mayo Clinic Proceedings
JF - Mayo Clinic Proceedings
IS - 2
ER -