Evidence Hub

Cardiovascular–kidney–metabolic syndrome and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: A retrospective cohort study

Min-Kuang Tsai, Juliana Tze-Wah Kao, Chung‑Shun Wong, C. Liao, Wei-Cheng Lo, Kuo-Liong Chien, Chi-Pang Wen, Mai-Szu Wu et al.

PLoS Medicine, 2025

515,602 participants · 65 citations

Abstract

Background The American Heart Association recently issued guidelines introducing the concept of cardiovascular–kidney–metabolic (CKM) syndrome to emphasize the importance of multidisciplinary approaches to prevention, risk stratification, and treatment for these diseases. This study assessed the prevalence of CKM syndrome stages and the mortality risk associated with its components in a large Asian cohort. Methods and findings We analyzed a retrospective cohort of 515,602 participants aged ≥20 years from a health screening program conducted between 1996 and 2017 in Taiwan. We assessed the associations of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, and cause-specific mortality with CKM stages and its components—hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease (CKD), metabolic syndrome, and hyperlipidemia. All participants were followed for a median of 16.5 years (interquartile range: 11.5, 21.2 years). Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for age, sex, educational level, smoking status, alcohol drinking status, and physical activity groups, were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs). We used Chiang’s life table method to estimate years of life lost due to each CKM component. Among all participants, 257,535 (49.9%) were female. The majority of participants (n = 368,578 participants, (71.5%)) met criteria for CKM syndrome, with prevalence rates of 19.5%, 46.3%, 1.9%, and 3.8% for stages 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. CKM syndrome was…

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: 515,602 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