Endocrine Abstracts

Introduction: Metabolic syndrome (MS) is an independent risk factor of coronary artery disease (CAD). We investigated how influenced this risk is by the definition of MS, and whether the risk is greater than that conferred by its components.

Methods: We analyzed 200 consecutive patients (35–79 years, mean 59.23±8.6, men 132, women 68) who underwent coronary angiography due to suspected myocardial ischemia. MS was obtained by several definitions: ATPIII, IDF, and JIS from 2009. CAD was defined by the presence of stenosis of any severity. CAD severity was determined by Gensini, and extent of disease scores. The effects of predictors on the presence of CAD and its severity were analyzed using binary logistic regression, and multiple linear regression analysis.

Results: MS was present in 151(75.5%), 167(83.5%), and 172(86%) patients, using ATPIII, IDF, and JIS criteria, respectively. Regardless of used criteria, MS was associated with increased risk of CAD (OR=3.30, CI95%: 1.64–6.63, OR=4.48, CI95%: 2.05–9.82, OR=5.62, CI95%: 2.43–13.0, for ATPIII, IDF and JIS criteria, respectively). Overall risk was significantly higher in women with MS than in men with MS, using all three criteria. Patients with ≥3 clustered components were in greatest risk of CAD (OR=4.19, CI95%: 2.03–8.67). However, diabetes and hypertension, each or together, had similar strength in predicting CAD. Waist circumference did not have effect on CAD risk. The higher the number of components of MS included, the higher the value of Gensini and extent of disease score was obtained (r=0.36, P=0.0001, and τ=0.4, P=0.001, respectively). However, the strongest independent risk factor of severity of disease defined by Gensini score was diabetes, while hypertension was the strongest predictor of extent of disease score.

Conclusion: Irrespectively of diagnostic criteria, MS has similar clinical significance as diabetes and hypertension individually.

Declaration of interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.

Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sector