Table 2.
Association of SAF with echocardiographic parameters and LV systolic and diastolic function
| Outcome | β (95%CI) |
|---|---|
| LVEF | |
| Model 1a | −1.14 (−1.61, –0.67) |
| Model 2b | −0.98 (−1.45, −0.50) |
| E/e′ | |
| Model 1a | 0.24 (−0.05, 0.54) |
| Model 2b | 0.13 (−0.17, 0.43) |
| E/A | |
| Model 1a | 0.01 (−0.01, 0.03) |
| Model 2b | 0.01 (−0.02, 0.03) |
| LA diameter | |
| Model 1a | 0.26 (−0.19, 0.70) |
| Model 2b | 0.07 (−0.36, 0.50) |
| LVM index | |
| Model 1a | −1.26 (−3.25, 0.72) |
| Model 2b | −1.24 (−3.24, 0.77) |
Mean difference (β) (95% CI) for one unit increase in SAF was calculated using linear regression
aModel 1 adjusted for age and sex
bModel 2 adjusted for age, sex, CHD, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, smoking status, waist circumference, monthly income and physical activity
The number of individuals with available data on outcomes was 2328 for LVEF, 2295 for E/e′, 2307 for E/A, 2343 for LA diameter and 1181 for LVM index