Loading…

Relationship between waist‐to‐height ratio and heart failure outcome: A single‐centre prospective cohort study

Aims This study sought to evaluate the correlation between waist‐to‐height ratio (WHtR) and heart failure (HF) outcomes across different ejection fraction (EF) categories. Methods and results A prospective cohort study was conducted at a comprehensive tertiary hospital in China. The participants wer...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:ESC Heart Failure 2025-02, Vol.12 (1), p.290-303
Main Authors: Wang, Ping, Zhao, Yang, Wang, Danni, Wang, Boxiang, Liu, Hange, Fu, Guotao, Tao, Ling, Tian, Gang
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Aims This study sought to evaluate the correlation between waist‐to‐height ratio (WHtR) and heart failure (HF) outcomes across different ejection fraction (EF) categories. Methods and results A prospective cohort study was conducted at a comprehensive tertiary hospital in China. The participants were categorized by WHtR and EF quartiles. Outpatient or telephone follow‐up occurred every 6 months after the diagnosis of heart failure. The primary endpoint was all‐cause mortality at 48 months. Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were employed to evaluate the association between WHtR and all‐cause mortality. Among 859 enrolled participants, 545 (63.4%) were male, and the mean age was 65.2 ± 11.1 years. After adjusting for age and sex, WHtR demonstrated a strong correlation with both BMI (correlation = 0.703, P = 0.000) and WHR (correlation = 0.609, P = 0.000). Individuals with a high WHtR (≥0.50) had a higher prevalence of hypertension (56.4% vs. 39.6%) and diabetes (26.5% vs. 13.7%), higher levels of TC (3.61 ± 1.55 vs. 3.36 ± 0.90 mmol/L), TG (1.40 ± 0.81 vs. 1.06 ± 0.59 mmol/L), and LDL‐C (2.03 ± 0.85 vs. 1.86 ± 0.76 mmol/L) compared with patients with low WHtR (
ISSN:2055-5822
2055-5822
DOI:10.1002/ehf2.15029