The Diagnostic Criteria of Metabolic Syndrome and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease according to Definitions in Men.
10.4082/kjfm.2010.31.3.198
- Author:
Hyouk Soo SEO
1
;
Sung Hi KIM
;
Soon Woo PARK
;
Jong Yeon KIM
;
Geon Ho LEE
;
Hye Mi LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Family Medicine, Daegu Catholic University Medical Center, Daegu, Korea. khmksh@cu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Metabolic Syndrome;
Framingham Risk Score;
Diagnostic Criteria
- MeSH:
Adult;
Cholesterol;
Coronary Disease;
Heart;
Hospitals, General;
Humans;
Lung;
Male;
Mass Screening;
Sensitivity and Specificity;
Waist Circumference;
World Health Organization
- From:Korean Journal of Family Medicine
2010;31(3):198-207
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Early detection of metabolic syndrome (MS) is important to prevent complications. Yet, there is no internationally agreed definition for MS. This study was performed to compare the diagnostic criteria of MS using various definitions and agreements, and to find better definition for screening high risk group of coronary heart disease. METHODS: The participants were 426 men above forty years old who had visited to have health screening in a general hospital in Daegu from March to December in 2007. The diagnostic criteria of MS and Kappa statistic were calculated according to the following five diagnostic definitions; modified World Health Organization (WHO), National Cholesterol Education Program Third Adult Treatment Panel (NCEP-ATP III), International Diabetes Federation (IDF), American Heart Association/National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (AHA/NHLBI) and NCEP-ATP III modified waist circumference > or = 90 cm (modified NCEP-ATP III). The sensitivity and specificity of each definition of MS were calculated with respect to high risk group by Framingham risk score (FRS). RESULTS: The diagnostic criteria of MS were 6.6% by IDF, 7.7% by WHO, 10.6% by NCEP-ATP III, 18.1% by modified NCEP-ATP III and 22.3% by AHA/NHLBI. The kappa satistic ranged from 0.30 to 0.87. The sensitivity of each definition with respect to FRS was 8.3% in IDF, 13.4% in WHO, 15.3% in NCEP-ATP III, 27.4% in modified NCEP-ATP III and 32.5% in AHA/NHLBI. CONCLUSION: There was great difference in the diagnostic criteria of MS according to diagnostic definitions. The author suggests that AHA/NHLBI or modified NCEP-ATP III definition may be better for screening high risk group of coronary heart disease than others.
