Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 May 30.
Published in final edited form as: Circulation. 2017 Mar 30;135(22):2119–2132. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.027272

Table 3.

Association of test results the with the composite atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) outcome

Variable Unadjusted
HR (95% CI)
Model 1
HR (95% CI)
Model 2
HR (95% CI)
MESA DHS MESA DHS MESA DHS
Continuous Test Results
ECG-LVH * 1.71 (1.33, 2.21) 2.76(1.67, 4.56) 1.24 (0.95, 1.61) 1.83 (1.07, 3.12) 1.14 (0.87, 1.48) 1.84 (1.08, 3.14)
Ln (CAC+1) 2.04 (1.87, 2.22) 2.17 (1.88, 2.50) 1.56 (1.41, 1.73) 1.43 (1.20, 1.72) 1.49 (1.34, 1.65) 1.43 (1.19, 1.72)
Ln (NT-proBNP) 1.73 (1.62, 1.85) 1.56 (1.27, 1.92) 1.45 (1.30, 1.61) 1.25 (1.01, 1.55) 1.29 (1.15, 1.43) 1.18 (0.95, 1.47)
Ln (hs-cTnT) 1.73 (1.62, 1.85) 1.74 (1.53, 1.97) 1.37 (1.25, 1.49) 1.16 (0.98, 1.38) 1.23 (1.12, 1.35) 1.11 (0.93, 1.34)
Ln (hs-CRP) 1.17 (1.08, 1.28) 1.19 (0.97, 1.47) 1.09 (0.99, 1.21) 0.97 (0.77, 1.22) 1.07 (0.97, 1.17) 0.93 (0.74, 1.18)
Categorical test results
ECG-LVH * 1.71 (1.33, 2.21) 2.45 (1.49, 4.02) 1.24 (0.95, 1.61) 1.69 (0.99, 2.87) 1.19 (0.92, 1.55) 1.88 (1.10, 3.20)
CAC > 10 U 3.87 (3.18, 4.72) 7.27 (4.87, 10.85) 2.17 (1.74, 2.70) 2.31 (1.44, 3.70) 2.09 (1.67, 2.60) 2.31 (1.44, 3.71)
NT-proBNP ≥100 pg/mL 2.44 (2.04, 2.92) 3.22 (2.10, 4.92) 1.69 (1.35, 2.11) 2.25 (1.38, 3.68) 1.55 (1.26, 1.91) 1.99 (1.19, 3.32)
hs-cTnT ≥ 5 ng/L 2.78 (2.31, 3.36) 4.20 (2.87, 6.17) 1.40 (1.13, 1.74) 1.43 (0.91, 2.25) 1.29 (1.04, 1.59) 1.23 (0.75, 2.02)
hs-CRP ≥ 3 mg/L 1.38 (1.16, 1.65) 1.54 (1.05, 2.25) 1.24 (1.02, 1.50) 1.12 (0.74, 1.69) 1.19 (0.98, 1.44) 1.10 (0.72, 1.70)

Model 1 is adjusted for age, sex, race, smoking status, diabetes, total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, systolic blood pressure and blood pressure medications, and statin use. Model 2 includes the components of model 1 and all 5 test results. The Hazard Ratio (HR) for continuous test results reflects a one standard deviation change in the Ln of the test result. N=486 events in MESA and 96 in DHS.

*

ECG-LVH was treated as a categorical variable in both analyses. Coefficients were determined separately for each model.