Article

Exercise workload, cardiovascular risk factor evaluation and the risk of stroke in middle-aged men

Research Institute of Public Health Unit, School of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Kuopio, Kuopio, Finland.
Journal of Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 5.79). 10/2008; 265(2):229-37. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2008.02006.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We investigated the prognostic significance of risk scores and exercise workload with respect to stroke. Background. There are no data on exercise workload combined with European Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) in the prediction of stroke.
Exercise workload was measured by exercise test with an electrically braked cycle ergometer performed at baseline. The study is based on a random population-based sample of 1639 men (42-60 years) without history of type 2 diabetes or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease including coronary heart disease, stroke or claudication.
During an average follow-up of 16 years, a total of 97 strokes occurred, of which 71 were ischaemic strokes. Independent predictors for all strokes were European SCORE [for 1% increment, relative risk (RR): 1.12, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.22, P=0.017), maximal workload (for 20 W increment, RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.95, P=0.003) and body mass index (for 5 kg m(-2) increment, RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.14, P=0.004), when adjusted for serum HDL, alcohol consumption, C-reactive protein, family history of coronary heart disease, exercise-induced ST changes and the use of medications for hypertension, dyslipidaemia or aspirin. The risk was 2.54-fold (95% CI: 1.27-5.09, P=0.008) for any strokes and 4.43-fold (95% CI 1.69-11.78, P=0.003) for ischaemic strokes amongst men with exercise capacity less than 162 W when compared with those with high exercise capacity over 230 W, after adjustment for risk factors.
Low exercise workload predicts an especially high risk for stroke in the presence of high risk SCORE.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Jari Antero Laukkanen, Sep 12, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
56 Views
  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Stroke remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. While stroke-related mortality has declined over the past four decades, data indicate that the mortality rate has begun to plateau. This change in trend may be attributable to variation in individual response to therapies that were derived from population-based studies. Further reductions in stroke mortality may require individualized care governed by directly monitoring the effects of cardiovascular therapy. In this article, carotid MRI is considered as a tool for monitoring in vivo carotid atherosclerotic disease, a principal etiology of stroke. Carotid MRI has been previously utilized to identify specific plaque features beyond luminal stenosis that are predictive of transient ischemic attack and stroke. To gain perspective on the possibility of monitoring plaque change within the individual, clinical trials and natural history studies that have used serial carotid MRI are considered. Data from these studies indicate that patients with a lipid-rich necrotic core with or without intraplaque hemorrhage may represent the desired phenotype for monitoring treatment effects in the individual. Advances in tissue-specific sequences, acquisition resolution, scan time, and techniques for monitoring inflammation and mechanical forces are expected to enable earlier detection of response to therapy. In so doing, cost-effective multicenter studies can be conducted to confirm the anticipated positive effects on outcomes of using carotid MRI for individualized care in patients with carotid atherosclerosis. In accordance, carotid MRI is poised to emerge as a powerful clinical tool for individualized management of carotid atherosclerotic disease to prevent stroke.
    Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy 01/2011; 9(1):63-80. DOI:10.1586/erc.10.172
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Coronary heart disease is the leading cause of death in adults. Screening for abnormalities by using resting or exercise electrocardiography (ECG) might help identify persons who would benefit from interventions to reduce cardiovascular risk. To update the 2004 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force evidence review on screening for resting or exercise ECG abnormalities in asymptomatic adults. MEDLINE (2002 through January 2011), the Cochrane Library database (through the fourth quarter of 2010), and reference lists. Randomized, controlled trials and prospective cohort studies. Investigators abstracted details about the study population, study design, data analysis, follow-up, and results and assessed quality by using predefined criteria. No study evaluated clinical outcomes or use of risk-reducing therapies after screening versus no screening. No study estimated how accurately resting or exercise electrocardiography classified participants into high-, intermediate-, or low-risk groups, compared with traditional risk factor assessment alone. Sixty-three prospective cohort studies evaluated abnormalities on resting or exercise ECG as predictors of cardiovascular events after adjustment for traditional risk factors. Abnormalities on resting ECG (ST-segment or T-wave abnormalities, left ventricular hypertrophy, bundle branch block, or left-axis deviation) or exercise ECG (ST-segment depression with exercise, chronotropic incompetence, abnormal heart rate recovery, or decreased exercise capacity) were associated with increased risk (pooled hazard ratio estimates, 1.4 to 2.1). Evidence on harms was limited, but direct harms seemed minimal (for resting ECG) or small (for exercise ECG). No study estimated harms from subsequent testing or interventions, although rates of angiography after exercise ECG ranged from 0.6% to 2.9%. Only English-language studies were included. Statistical heterogeneity was present in several of the pooled analyses. Abnormalities on resting or exercise ECG are associated with an increased risk for subsequent cardiovascular events after adjustment for traditional risk factors, but the clinical implications of these findings are unclear.
    Annals of internal medicine 09/2011; 155(6):375-85. DOI:10.1059/0003-4819-155-6-201109200-00006 · 16.10 Impact Factor