Cited by 662Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention

National Cholesterol Education Program Versus World Health Organization Metabolic Syndrome in Relation to All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality in the San Antonio Heart Study

Hunt, Kelly J., Resendez, Roy G., Williams, Ken, Haffner, Steve M., Stern, Michael P.·2004·Circulation

Abstract

Background— To assess the utility of clinical definitions of the metabolic syndrome (MetS) to identify individuals with increased cardiovascular risk, we examined the relation between the MetS, using both the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) and the World Health Organization definitions, and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in San Antonio Heart Study participants enrolled between 1984 and 1988. Methods and Results— Among 2815 participants, 25 to 64 years of age at enrollment, 509 met both criteria, 197 met NCEP criteria only, and 199 met WHO criteria only. Over an average of 12.7 years, 229 deaths occurred (117 from cardiovascular disease). Moreover, in the primary prevention population of 2372 participants (ie, those without diabetes or cardiovascular disease at baseline), 132 deaths occurred (50 from cardiovascular disease). In the primary prevention population, the only significant association adjusted for age, gender, and ethnic group was between NCEP-MetS and cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.01; 95% CI, 1.13–3.57). In the general population, all-cause mortality HRs were 1.47 (95% CI, 1.13–1.92) for NCEP-MetS and 1.27 (95% CI, 0.97–1.66) for WHO-MetS. Furthermore, for cardiovascular mortality, there was evidence that gender modified the predictive ability of the MetS. For women and men, respectively, HRs for NCEP-MetS were 4.65 (95% CI, 2.35–9.21) and 1.82 (95% CI, 1.14–2.91), whereas HRs for WHO-MetS were 2.83 (95% CI, 1.55–5.17) and 1.15 (95% CI, 0.72–1.86). Conclusions— In summary, although both definitions were predictive in the general population, the simpler NCEP definition tended to be more predictive in lower-risk subjects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.cir.0000140762.04598.f9

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Metabolic syndrome is a condition that poses a high risk for the development of cardiovascular disease.

    “[Statement]Metabolic syndrome is a condition that poses a high risk for the development of cardiovascular disease (Evidence level: E-1b).”
  • Conditions such as metabolic syndrome that involve the clustering of multiple risk factors have been shown to increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases in epidemiological studies and meta-analyses, as well as in CIRCS study, Tanno and Sobetsu study, and Hisayama study.

    “Conditions, such as metabolic syndrome, that involve the clustering of multiple risk factors have been shown to increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases in epidemiological studies323–326) and meta-analyses327), as well as in CIRCS study78), the Tanno and Sobetsu study328) and the Hisayama study317).”
  • Metabolic syndrome is significant because it is a high risk of ASCVD even if the levels of hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia and elevated blood pressure are relatively mild.

    “Metabolic syndrome is significant because it is a high risk of ASCVD even if the levels of hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia and elevated blood pressure are relatively mild323–327).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hunt, K. J., Resendez, R. G., Williams, K., Haffner, S. M., & Stern, M. P.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
  • From the Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Tex.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2004-09-07
Volume
110
Issue
10
Pages
1251-1257
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W1999223458
Cited by
662
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 42
FWCI
48.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Circulation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • American Diabetes Association
  • American Heart Association
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01 HL 36820, R01HL024799, R01HL036820, R01HL24799, T32HL007446, T32-HL07446)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K01DK064867)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Keywords
metabolic syndrome, NCEP criteria, WHO criteria, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular risk prediction, San Antonio Heart Study, primary prevention, sex differences, diagnostic criteria comparison
MeSH terms
Adult, Albuminuria, Cardiovascular Diseases, Female, Humans, Hyperglycemia, Hyperinsulinism, Hyperlipidemias, Insulin Resistance, Male, Middle Aged, Mortality, National Health Programs, Terminology as Topic, Obesity, Patient Education as Topic, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, Texas, World Health Organization, Cohort Studies, Comorbidity, Proportional Hazards Models, Mexican Americans, Metabolic Syndrome, Diabetes Complications

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review