Table 3.
Relationship between TyG and baPWV in different models
| Model 1 | p value | Model 2 | p value | Model 3 | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TyG index | 1.84 (1.50,2.27) | < 0.001 | 1.91 (1.49,2.44) | < 0.001 | 1.57 (1.14,2.18) | 0.006** |
| TyG index | ||||||
| Q1 (< 7.96) | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |||
| Q2 (7.96–8.57) | 1.74 (1.25,2.42) | < 0.001 | 1.66 (1.15,2.41) | 0.196 | 1.43 (0.93,2.19) | 0.101 |
| Q3 (> 8.57) | 2.42 (1.74,3.36) | < 0.001 | 2.50 (1.70,3.71) | < 0.001 | 1.78 (1.08,2.95) | 0.024* |
| p for trend | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.024 | |||
Model 1 was not adjusted. Model 2 was adjusted for sex and age. Model 3 was adjusted for sex, age, BMI, SBP, DBP, HDL-C, fatty liver, eGFR. BMI, body mass index; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; TyG, triglyceride glucose index; baPWV, brachial to ankle pulse wave velocity; CI, confidence interval. (*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01)