Figure 1: Schematic Diagram of Enrollment in CATHAY Study, Recruiting 2163 Native and Overseas Chinese adults
|
Female(n= 1180) |
Male(n= 983) |
Overall(n=2163) |
P-value* |
Age (yr) |
46.5±11.6 |
47.6±11.8 |
47±11.7 |
0.28 |
Smoking Status (%) |
4.8 |
38.6 |
20.8 |
<0.0001 |
BMI |
23.0±3.8 |
23.7±3.4 |
23.3±3.6 |
<0.0001 |
WHR |
0.83±0.07 |
0.87±0.06 |
0.85±0.07 |
<0.0001 |
SBP (mmHg) |
121.0±17.9 |
122.5±16.6 |
121.8±17.3 |
0.047 |
DBP (mmHg) |
77.5±10.4 |
80.0±10.7 |
78.7±10.6 |
<0.0001 |
Glucose (mmol/l) |
5.4±1.0 |
5.4±1.0 |
5.4±1.0 |
0.53 |
Creatinine (mol/l) |
61.8±15.2 |
83.1±18.9 |
71.3±20.0 |
<0.0001 |
LDL-C (mmol/l) |
2.92±0.95 |
3.09±1.01 |
2.99±0.48 |
<0.0001 |
HDL-C (mmol/l) |
1.33±0.36 |
1.17±0.33 |
1.25±0.86 |
<0.0001 |
Triglycerides (mmol/l) |
1.26±1.05 |
1.48±1.09 |
1.36±1.08 |
<0.0001 |
HBA1-C (%) |
5.4±0.69 |
5.7±1.1 |
5.6±1.0 |
0.1 |
Folate (mmol/l) |
27.1±15.2 |
21.0±12.3 |
24.0±14.1 |
<0.0001 |
B12 (mmol/l) |
334.4±247.9 |
274.8±171.7 |
303.8±214.2 |
<0.0001 |
MS (%) |
20.4 |
17.8 |
19.7 |
0.6 |
PM2.5 (µg/m3) |
52.4±26.8 |
48.8±27.0 |
50.8±26.9 |
<0.0002 |
BMI: Body Mass Index; B12: Vitamin B12; DBP: Diastolic Blood Pressure; HBA1C: haemoglobin A1c; HDL-C: High Density Lipoprotein
Cholesterol; LDL-C: Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol; MS: Metabolic Syndrome; PM2.5: Particulate Matter< 2.5um in Diameter; SBP:
Systolic Blood Pressure; WHR: Waist-Hip Ratio
Table 1 : Clinical Characteristics of 2163 Subjects in CATHAY Study
|
Female |
Male |
P-value |
Vessel Diameter (mm) |
2.98±0.56 |
3.70±0.61 |
<0.0001 (0.0005)* |
Hyperemia (%) |
705.6±257.1 |
664.9±265.1 |
0.014 (0.07)* |
GTN (%) |
18.8±4.2 |
17.6±3.6 |
0.0001 (0.0005)* |
FMD (%)(95% CI) |
8.43±2.58(8.21-8.65) |
7.59±2.24(7.39-7.78) |
<0.0001 |
IMT (mm)(95% CI) |
0.63±0.13(0.62-0.64) |
0.67±0.16(0.66-0.68) |
0.047 |
*After Bonferroni Adjustment 95% CI: 95% Confidence Interval; FMD: Brachial flow-mediated Dilation; GTN: Glyceryltrinitrate-induced Dilation; IMT: Intima-media
thickness
Table 2 : Vascular Parameters of CATHAY Subjects
|
Estimated CoefficientBeta Value |
P-value |
Age (yr) |
-0.166 |
<0.0001 |
Gender |
0.152 |
<0.0001 |
Smoking Status (%) |
-0.083 |
0.020 |
BMI |
-0.051 |
0.166 |
SBP (mmHg) |
-0.030 |
0.549 |
DBP (mmHg) |
-0.038 |
0.418 |
LDL-C (mmol/l) |
0.021 |
0.570 |
MS (%) |
-0.019 |
0.612 |
PM2.5 (µg/m3) |
-0.486 |
0.005 |
BMI: Body Mass Index; DBP: Diastolic Blood Pressure; FMD: Flow-Mediated Dilation; LDL-C: Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol; MS: Metabolic Syndrome; PM2.5: Particulate Matter< 2.5um in Diameter; SBP: Systolic Blood Pressure Table 3 : Determinants of Risk Factors for FMD in CATHAY Chinese
|
Estimated CoefficientBeta Value |
P-value |
Age (yr) |
0.454 |
<0.0001 |
Gender |
0.116 |
<0.0001 |
Smoking Status (%) |
0.010 |
0.672 |
BMI |
0.067 |
0.006 |
SBP (mmHg) |
0.145 |
<0.0001 |
DBP (mmHg) |
-0.065 |
0.047 |
LDL-C (mmol/l) |
0.075 |
0.002 |
MS (%) |
0.066 |
0.008 |
PM2.5 (µg/m3) |
0.204 |
0.025 |
BMI: Body Mass Index; DBP: Diastolic Blood Pressure; IMT: Intima-Media Thickness; LDL-C: Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol; MS: Metabolic Syndrome; PM2.5: Particulate Matter< 2.5um in Diameter; SBP: Systolic Blood Pressure
Table 4 : Determinants of Risk Factors for Carotid IMT in CATHAY Chinese
|
Estimated CoefficientBeta Value |
P-value |
Age (yr) |
0.454 |
<0.0001 |
Gender |
0.116 |
<0.0001 |
Smoking Status (%) |
0.010 |
0.672 |
BMI |
0.067 |
0.006 |
SBP (mmHg) |
0.145 |
<0.0001 |
DBP (mmHg) |
-0.065 |
0.047 |
LDL-C (mmol/l) |
0.075 |
0.002 |
MS (%) |
0.066 |
0.008 |
PM2.5 (µg/m3) |
0.204 |
0.025 |
Numerical numbers 29, 30, 31 49-50 indicate ‘references’
Table 5 A: Comparison of Mean Carotid IMT in Overall Chinese versus Other Ethnics
|
|
|
Age Groups (Years) |
||||
Study Year |
No. of Subjects |
Overall (mm) |
25-34 (mm) |
35-44 (mm) |
45-54 (mm) |
55-64 (mm) |
>64 (mm) |
CATHAY 2007(Chinese) |
2163 |
0.65±0.15(0.64-0.65) |
|
|
|
|
|
Female |
1180 |
|
0.52±0.07 |
0.59±0.09 |
0.66±0.12 |
0.7±0.17 |
0.76±0.18 |
|
|
|
(0.51-0.53) |
(0.58-0.60) |
(0.65-0.67) |
(0.70-0.73) |
(0.72-0.81) |
Male |
983 |
|
0.56±0.09 |
0.60±0.09 |
0.68±0.13 |
0.75±0.17 |
0.79±0.27 |
|
|
|
(0.54-0.57) |
(0.59-0.62) |
(0.66-0.69) |
(0.73-0.78) |
(0.73-0.86) |
CARMELLA 2007 [30](Latin America) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Buenos Aires |
1482 |
0.74(0.74-0.75) |
|
|
|
|
|
Female |
|
|
0.68 |
0.71 |
0.76 |
0.81 |
|
|
|
|
(0.67-0.68) |
(0.70-0.72) |
(0.74-0.77) |
(0.80-0.82) |
|
Male |
|
|
0.70 |
0.74 |
0.79 |
0.85 |
|
|
|
|
(0.68-0.71) |
(0.73-0.75) |
(0.78-0.81) |
(0.83-0.87) |
|
Mexico City |
1722 |
0.69(0.69-0.70) |
|
|
|
|
|
Female |
|
|
0.67 |
0.68 |
0.70 |
0.73 |
|
|
|
|
(0.66-0.68) |
(0.67-0.68) |
(0.69-0.71) |
(0.72-0.75) |
|
Male |
|
|
0.68 |
0.69 |
0.73 |
0.76 |
|
|
|
|
(0.67-0.69) |
(0.68-0.69) |
(0.72-0.74) |
(0.75-0.78) |
|
Lima |
1632 |
0.63(0.63-0.64) |
|
|
|
|
|
Female |
|
|
0.57 |
0.62 |
0.68 |
0.72 |
|
|
|
|
(0.57-0.58) |
(0.61-0.62) |
(0.67-0.69) |
(0.71-0.73) |
|
Male |
|
|
0.58 |
0.63 |
0.68 |
0.72 |
|
|
|
|
(0.57-0.59) |
(0.62-0.65) |
(0.67-0.69) |
(0.71-0.74) |
|
Santiago |
1655 |
0.60(0.59-0.60) |
|
|
|
|
|
Female |
|
|
0.53 |
0.58 |
0.62 |
0.68 |
|
|
|
|
(0.52-0.54) |
(0.57-0.58) |
(0.61-0.64) |
(0.67-0.69) |
|
Male |
|
|
0.55 |
0.61 |
0.65 |
0.70 |
|
|
|
|
(0.54-0.55) |
(0.60-0.62) |
(0.64-0.66) |
(0.68-0.71) |
|
( ): 95% Confidence intervals |
|||||||
Table 5 B: Comparison of Carotid IMT in Different City/ County
Study Year |
IMT Percentile |
Female |
Male |
||||||
|
|
30–39 |
40–49 |
50–59 |
60–69 |
30–39 |
40–49 |
50–59 |
60–69 |
PARC [31]2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
French |
P05 |
0.467 |
0.514 |
0.553 |
0.575 |
0.464 |
0.528 |
0.549 |
0.569 |
(n=889) |
P10 |
0.492 |
0.539 |
0.586 |
0.612 |
0.519 |
0.560 |
0.585 |
0.618 |
|
P25 |
0.537 |
0.576 |
0.619 |
0.665 |
0.574 |
0.586 |
0.637 |
0.663 |
|
P50 |
0.588 |
0.640 |
0.669 |
0.752 |
0.616 |
0.653 |
0.701 |
0.738 |
|
P75 |
0.635 |
0.691 |
0.737 |
0.817 |
0.672 |
0.705 |
0.787 |
0.842 |
|
P90 |
0.670 |
0.726 |
0.789 |
0.865 |
0.749 |
0.756 |
0.836 |
0.909 |
|
P95 |
0.687 |
0.745 |
0.828 |
0.906 |
0.772 |
0.802 |
0.914 |
1.030 |
CATHAY 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chinese |
P05 |
0.452 |
0.455 |
0.531 |
0.505 |
0.410 |
0.441 |
0.515 |
0.521 |
(n=1029) |
P10 |
0.480 |
0.490 |
0.581 |
0.553 |
0.450 |
0.500 |
0.564 |
0.580 |
|
P25 |
0.510 |
0.540 |
0.635 |
0.646 |
0.510 |
0.570 |
0.646 |
0.688 |
|
P50 |
0.560 |
0.600 |
0.673 |
0.713 |
0.550 |
0.610 |
0.703 |
0.750 |
|
P75 |
0.590 |
0.659 |
0.730 |
0.785 |
0.610 |
0.678 |
0.808 |
0.796 |
|
P90 |
0.633 |
0.706 |
0.830 |
0.841 |
0.640 |
0.736 |
0.875 |
0.966 |
|
P95 |
0.644 |
0.730 |
0.899 |
0.850 |
0.675 |
0.770 |
0.957 |
1.034 |
Table 5 C: Comparison of Carotid IMT (mm) in Chinese vs French Population Without Risk Factor
Figure 1: Schematic Diagram of Enrollment in CATHAY Study, Recruiting 2163 Native and Overseas Chinese adults
Figure 2: Normal distribution of (A) brachial flow-mediated dilation (FMD) and (B) carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) in CATHAY Cohort
Figure 3: Gender-specific brachial flow-mediated dilation (FMD) in CATHAY subjects according to age, with display of the mean and standard deviation (%) in each age group.
Figure 4: Gender-specific carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) in CATHAY subjects according to age, with display of the mean and standard deviation (mm) in each age group.
Figure 5: Smoothed brachial flow-mediated dilation (FMD) in centiles 5%-95%) of CATHAY subjects according to age in the males (A) and the females (B).
Figure 6: Smoothed carotid IMT in centiles in CATHAY subjects in centiles 5%-95%) of CATHAY subjects according to age in the males (A) and the females (B).
Figure 7: Forest Plot of Brachial Flow-mediated Dilation (FMD) in CATHAY Subjects
Figure 8: Forest Plot of Carotid Intima-media Thickness (IMT) in CATHAY Subjects
Tables at a glance
Figures at a glance