Evidence Hub

Dose–response association between Chinese visceral adiposity index and cardiovascular disease: a national prospective cohort study

Yong-Cheng Ren, Qing Hu, Zheng Li, Xiaofang Zhang, Lei Yang, Lingzhen Kong

Frontiers in Endocrinology, 2024

7,439 participants · 59 citations

Abstract

Background Chinese visceral adiposity index (CVAI) is a reliable visceral obesity index, but the association between CVAI and risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains unclear. We explored the associations of CVAI with incident CVD, heart disease, and stroke and compared the predictive power of CVAI with other obesity indices based on a national cohort study. Methods The present study included 7,439 participants aged ≥45 years from China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS). Cox regression models were applied to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Restricted cubic splines analyses were adopted to model the dose–response associations. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analyses were used to compare the predictive ability of different obesity indices (CVAI, visceral adiposity index [VAI], a body shape index [ABSI], conicity index [CI], waist circumference [WC], and body mass index [BMI]). Results During 7 years’ follow‐up, 1,326 incident CVD, 1,032 incident heart disease, and 399 stroke cases were identified. The HRs (95% CI) of CVD, heart disease, and stroke were 1.50 (1.25-1.79), 1.29 (1.05-1.57), and 2.45 (1.74-3.45) for quartile 4 versus quartile 1 in CVAI. Linear associations of CVAI with CVD, heart disease, and stroke were observed (P nonlinear >0.05) and per-standard deviation (SD) increase was associated with 17% (HR 1.17, 1.10-1.24), 12% (1.12, 1.04-1.20), and 31% (1.31, 1.18-1.46) increased risk, respectively. Per-SD…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 7,439 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free