Nonfasting glucose and incident stroke and its types ― The circulatory risk in communities study (CIRCS)

8Citations
Citations of this article
30Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: The effect of postprandial glucose on the risk of cardiovascular disease has been emphasized, but it is controversial whether nonfasting glucose is related to incident stroke and its types. Methods and Results: We investigated the associations of nonfasting glucose with incident stroke and its types among 7,198 participants aged 40–74 years from the Circulatory Risk in Communities Study, enrolled in 1995–2000. We estimated multivariable hazard ratios (HR) using Cox proportional hazard models. Over a median follow-up of 14.1 years, 291 cases of total stroke (ischemic strokes: 191 including 109 lacunar infarctions) were identified. Nonfasting glucose concentration was associated with greater risk of incident total stroke, ischemic stroke and lacunar infarction when modeled categorically (for prediabetic type: 7.8–11.0 mmol/L vs. normal type: <7.8 mmol/L among all subjects, HR for lacunar infarction was 2.02, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.19, 3.43) or continuously (per one standard deviation increment among all subjects, HR for lacunar infarction was 1.29, 95% CI: 1.15, 1.45). Diabetic type showed similar results. Population attributable fractions of nonfasting hyperglycemia were 13.2% for ischemic stroke and 17.4% for lacunar infarction. Conclusions: Nonfasting glucose concentration, either as a diagnosis of prediabetic and diabetic types or as a continuous variable, proved to be an independent predictor significantly attributed to incident total stroke, especially ischemic stroke and lacunar infarction, in the general population.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Imano, H., Iso, H., Kitamura, A., Yamagishi, K., Hayama-Terada, M., Muraki, I., … Kiyama, M. (2018). Nonfasting glucose and incident stroke and its types ― The circulatory risk in communities study (CIRCS). Circulation Journal, 82(6), 1598–1604. https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.CJ-17-0950

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free