The value of wrist circumference for predicting the presence of coronary artery disease and metabolic syndrome

• Published in: Indian heart journal 2016-12, Vol.68 (Suppl 3), p.S5-S9
• Main Authors: Hajsadeghi, Shokoufeh, Firouzi, Ata, Bahadoran, Pouria, Hassanzadeh, Morteza
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Biomarkers - blood; Cardiovascular; Coronary Angiography; Coronary artery disease; Coronary Artery Disease - complications; Coronary Artery Disease - diagnosis; Coronary Artery Disease - epidemiology; Coronary Vessels - diagnostic imaging; Diagnosis, Differential; Female; Humans; Iran - epidemiology; Male; Metabolic syndrome; Metabolic Syndrome - complications; Metabolic Syndrome - diagnosis; Metabolic Syndrome - epidemiology; Middle Aged; Original; Predictive Value of Tests; Prevalence; Prognosis; Retrospective Studies; Risk Assessment - methods; Risk Factors; Wrist - anatomy & histology; Wrist circumference
• ISSN: 0019-4832
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ihj.2016.10.011

Abstract Background Recently, the value of various structural body components have been proposed for predicting cardio-metabolic risk. The present study aimed to assess the wrist circumference (WrC) as an alternative measure for differentiating patients with CAD and METs from those without CAD and METs. Methods We studied 228 consecutive subjects who underwent coronary angiography. Those with and without evidence of coronary artery involvement at angiography were considered as the coronary artery disease (CAD) group ( n = 139) and the non-CAD group ( n = 89), respectively. WrC was measured; and metabolic syndrome (METs) was defined according to the modified National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III criteria. Results WrC was significantly higher in CAD compared to non-CAD patients (17.85 ± 1.29 mm vs 17.43 ± 1.29 mm, P = 0.017). The overall prevalence of METs was significantly different between the CAD and non-CAD subjects (74.3% vs 58.8%, P = 0.016). Although there was a tendency for association, no statistically significant association between the mean of the WrC and the severity of CAD was found ( P = 0.065). WrC had a weak positive correlation with triglyceride ( r = 0.172, P = 0.011) and cholesterol ( r = 0.141, P = 0.038) level and a weak negative association with high-density lipoprotein level ( r = −0.279, P < 0.001). In multivariate logistic regression models, WrC could predict neither presence of CAD nor METs. Conclusion Although correlated with METs-type lipid profile, WrC may not be a valuable index for predicting the presence of CAD or METs.