Comparison of Muscle Strength and Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Relation to Cardiovascular and All-Cause Mortality: The Copenhagen City Heart Study

IF 6.9 2区医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL

Mayo Clinic proceedings Pub Date : 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1016/j.mayocp.2024.08.013

Peter Schnohr MD, DMSc , James H. O’Keefe MD , Carl J. Lavie MD , Charlotte Suetta MD, DMSc , Gorm Boje Jensen MD, DMSc , Jacob Louis Marott MSc, PhD

{"title":"Comparison of Muscle Strength and Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Relation to Cardiovascular and All-Cause Mortality: The Copenhagen City Heart Study","authors":"Peter Schnohr MD, DMSc , James H. O’Keefe MD , Carl J. Lavie MD , Charlotte Suetta MD, DMSc , Gorm Boje Jensen MD, DMSc , Jacob Louis Marott MSc, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.mayocp.2024.08.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To compare the association between muscle strength (MS), cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), and all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The Copenhagen City Heart Study is a prospective longitudinal study comprising a random sample of adults; we excluded participants with a history of coronary heart disease or cancer, leaving 9896 men and women for analyses. A self-administered questionnaire at baseline (from October 10, 1991, to September 16, 1994) documented self-rated MS and CRF, categorized as low, moderate, or high. MS was measured in 3299 participants by a hand grip strength of the dominant hand with isometric dynamometry. Multivariable adjusted analyses were performed adjusting for potential confounders.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>During follow-up of 27 years, 4971 all-cause deaths and 2128 CVD deaths occurred. Compared with moderate CRF, high CRF was associated with lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.90) and lower CVD mortality (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.93). There were approximately 10% higher risk reductions for CRF than for MS in comparing high with moderate levels for both all-cause and CVD mortality; comparing moderate with low levels, CRF was 19% (95% CI, −5% to 48%) better than MS for decreasing risk of all-cause mortality and 33% (95% CI, −6% to 89%) better for reducing CVD mortality. The self-rated MS reports corresponded well with the hand grip results.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Both CRF and MS are inversely associated with CVD mortality and all-cause mortality, but of the 2, CRF confers stronger protection.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":18334,"journal":{"name":"Mayo Clinic proceedings","volume":"100 3","pages":"Pages 488-498"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mayo Clinic proceedings","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025619624004130","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To compare the association between muscle strength (MS), cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), and all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality.

Methods

The Copenhagen City Heart Study is a prospective longitudinal study comprising a random sample of adults; we excluded participants with a history of coronary heart disease or cancer, leaving 9896 men and women for analyses. A self-administered questionnaire at baseline (from October 10, 1991, to September 16, 1994) documented self-rated MS and CRF, categorized as low, moderate, or high. MS was measured in 3299 participants by a hand grip strength of the dominant hand with isometric dynamometry. Multivariable adjusted analyses were performed adjusting for potential confounders.

Results

During follow-up of 27 years, 4971 all-cause deaths and 2128 CVD deaths occurred. Compared with moderate CRF, high CRF was associated with lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.90) and lower CVD mortality (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.93). There were approximately 10% higher risk reductions for CRF than for MS in comparing high with moderate levels for both all-cause and CVD mortality; comparing moderate with low levels, CRF was 19% (95% CI, −5% to 48%) better than MS for decreasing risk of all-cause mortality and 33% (95% CI, −6% to 89%) better for reducing CVD mortality. The self-rated MS reports corresponded well with the hand grip results.

Conclusion

Both CRF and MS are inversely associated with CVD mortality and all-cause mortality, but of the 2, CRF confers stronger protection.

查看原文本刊更多论文

肌肉力量和心肺健康与心血管和全因死亡率的关系：哥本哈根市心脏研究。

目的：比较肌力（MS）、心肺适能（CRF）与全因和心血管疾病（CVD）死亡率之间的关系。方法：哥本哈根市心脏研究是一项前瞻性纵向研究，包括成年人的随机样本；我们排除了有冠心病或癌症病史的参与者，留下9896名男性和女性进行分析。在基线（1991年10月10日至1994年9月16日），一份自我管理的问卷记录了自评MS和CRF，分为低、中、高。在3299名参与者中，MS是通过优势手的握力测量法测量的。对潜在混杂因素进行多变量调整分析。结果：27年随访期间，4971例全因死亡，2128例心血管疾病死亡。与中度CRF相比，高CRF与较低的全因死亡率相关(风险比，0.82；95% CI, 0.75 - 0.90)和较低的心血管疾病死亡率(风险比，0.81；95% CI, 0.70 ~ 0.93)。在全因死亡率和心血管疾病死亡率中，CRF的风险降低率比MS高10%左右；与中低水平相比，CRF在降低全因死亡率方面比MS好19% (95% CI， -5%至48%)，在降低CVD死亡率方面比MS好33% （95% CI， -6%至89%）。自评MS报告与手握结果吻合良好。结论：CRF和MS均与CVD死亡率和全因死亡率呈负相关，但两者中CRF具有更强的保护作用。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Mayo Clinic proceedings 医学-医学：内科

CiteScore

16.80

自引率

1.10%

发文量

383

审稿时长

37 days

期刊介绍： Mayo Clinic Proceedings is a premier peer-reviewed clinical journal in general medicine. Sponsored by Mayo Clinic, it is one of the most widely read and highly cited scientific publications for physicians. Since 1926, Mayo Clinic Proceedings has continuously published articles that focus on clinical medicine and support the professional and educational needs of its readers. The journal welcomes submissions from authors worldwide and includes Nobel-prize-winning research in its content. With an Impact Factor of 8.9, Mayo Clinic Proceedings is ranked #20 out of 167 journals in the Medicine, General and Internal category, placing it in the top 12% of these journals. It invites manuscripts on clinical and laboratory medicine, health care policy and economics, medical education and ethics, and related topics.