Evidence Hub

Association between atherogenic index of plasma and future risk of cardiovascular disease in individuals with cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome stages 0–3: a nationwide prospective cohort study

Gaoshu Zheng, Ji-Jie Jin, Fei Wang, Qianrong Zheng, Jiaxin Shao, Jiangnan Yao, Pan Huang, Hao Zhou et al.

Cardiovascular Diabetology, 2025

620 participants · 79 citations

Abstract

As an emerging concept, Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome (CKM) elucidates the intricate interconnection between metabolic disorders(Mets), cardiovascular disease(CVD), and chronic kidney disease(CKD). Within this context, while numerous studies have demonstrated a correlation between the Atherogenic Index of Plasma (AIP) and CVD, the precise relationship between long-term fluctuations in the AIP and the incidence of CVD in patients with CKM syndrome remains unclear. The CKM stages 0–3 population was obtained from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS). The outcome CVD was defined as self-reported heart disease and/or stroke. AIP control level was classified using k-mean cluster analysis. Logistic regression was used to analyse the effect of cumulative AIP (cumAIP) on the incidence of CVD. Restricted cubic spline models (RCS) were used to explore the potential non-linear relationship between cumulative AIP and CVD risk at different CKM syndrome stages. Of the 3429 CKM stages 0–3 participants, 620 patients developed CVD during the 3-year follow-up period. After adjusting for various confounders, the odds ratio (OR) for the well-controlled class 2 compared with the best AIP control class 1 were 1.37 (1.04, 1.81), the OR for the moderately-controlled class 3 were 1.54 (95% CI, 1.04–2.26), the poorly-controlled class 4 were 1.65 (95% CI, 1.13–2.41), and the worst-controlled class 5 were 2.14 (95% CI, 1.15–3.97). In restricted cubic spline regression…

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: 620 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