The Concept of CMR
Slides, videos and moreEvaluating CMR
Metabolic Syndrome and Type 2 Diabetes/CVD Risk
Comparison of Screening Tools
- 1Key Points (1 page)
- 2How Are Screening Tools Different? (1 page)
- 3The Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study (1 page)
- 4The Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study (1 page)
- 5The San Antonio Heart Study (1 page)
- 6The Hoorn Study (2 pages)
- 7The DECODE Study (1 page)
- 8The Prospective Epidemiological Study of Myocardial Infarction (1 page)
- 9The Strong Heart Study (1 page)
- 10Additional Evidence (2 pages)
- 11References (1 page)
Key Points
Page:
1 of 13
1 of 13
- WHO and EGIR clinical criteria rely mainly on insulin resistance. IDF criteria rely on abdominal obesity, while NCEP-ATP III gives equal weight to each clinical criterion of the metabolic syndrome.
- The IDF and NCEP-ATP III approaches use the same cut-off values for lipids, fasting glucose, and blood pressure. However, the IDF has proposed ethnic-specific cut-offs for waist circumference. Waist circumference is also a mandatory IDF criterion.
- A few prospective studies have compared metabolic syndrome criteria in assessing CVD risk. Although most criteria have a similar relationship to CVD risk, NCEP-ATP III criteria seem to have the strongest ties to CVD.
- Independent of the clinical criteria studied, the metabolic syndrome better predicts type 2 diabetes risk than CVD risk.
- Further studies are needed to compare various metabolic syndrome clinical criteria using different statistical models and in all populations of the world.
Page:
1 of 13
1 of 13
