Device-measured stationary behaviour and cardiovascular and orthostatic circulatory disease incidence: a population cohort study of 83,013 adults
Ahmadi, M.; Coenen, P.; Straker, L.; Stamatakis, E.
Show abstract
ImportancePrevious studies have indicated that standing maybe beneficially associated with surrogate metabolic markers, while more time spent sitting has an adverse association. Studies assessing the dose-response associations of standing, sitting, and composite stationary behaviour time with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and orthostatic circulatory disease are scarce and show an unclear picture. ObjectiveTo examine associations of daily sitting, standing, and stationary time with CVD and orthostatic circulatory disease incidence MethodsWe used accelerometer data from 83,013 adults (mean age{+/-}SD= 61.3{+/-}7.8; Female=55.6%) from the UK Biobank to assess daily time spent sitting and standing. Major CVD was defined as coronary heart disease, heart failure, and stroke. Orthostatic circulatory disease was defined as orthostatic hypotension, varicose vein, chronic venous insufficiency, and venous ulcers. ResultsDuring 6.9 ({+/-}0.9) years of follow-up 6,829 CVD and 2,042 orthostatic circulatory disease events occurred. When stationary time exceeded 12 hrs/day orthostatic circulatory disease risk was higher by an average HR [95% CI] of 0.22 [0.16, 0.29] per hour. Every additional hour above 10 hrs/day of sitting was associated with a 0.26 [0.18, 0.36] higher risk. Standing more than 2 hrs/day was associated with an 0.11 [0.05, 0.18] higher risk for every additional 30 min/day. For major CVD, when stationary time exceeded 12 hrs/day, risk was higher by an average of 0.13 [0.10, 0.16] per hour. Sitting time was associated with a 0.15 [0.11, 0.19] higher risk per extra hour. Time spent standing was not associated with major CVD risk. ConclusionsTime spent standing was not associated with CVD risk but was associated with higher orthostatic circulatory disease risk. Time spent sitting above 10 hours/day was associated with both higher orthostatic circulatory disease and major CVD risk. The deleterious associations of overall stationary time were primarily driven by sitting. Collectively, our findings indicate increasing standing time as a prescription may not lower major CVD risk and may lead to higher orthostatic circulatory disease risk.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Social Networks and Cardiovascular Disease Events in the Jackson Heart Study 94%
- Walking pace optimizes conventional cardiovascular disease risk prediction models among vulnerable subpopulations: a prospective cohort study 93%
- Prevalence of and risk factors for peripheral artery disease in rural South Africa: A cross-sectional analysis of the HAALSI cohort 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Joint association of genetic risk and accelerometer-based step count with cardiovascular disease: a UK-Biobank cohort study 95%
- Metabolomics data improve 10-year cardiovascular risk prediction with the SCORE2 algorithm for the general population without cardiovascular disease or diabetes 93%
- Shared and distinct pathways from anxiety disorder and depression to cardiovascular disease: a UK Biobank prospective cohort study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Environment-wide association study (EWAS) on cardiometabolic traits: A systematic assessment of the association of lifestyle variables on a longitudinal setting 92%
- What multiple Mendelian randomization approaches reveal about obesity and gout 92%
- Klotho plasma levels are an independent predictor of mortality in women with acute coronary syndrome 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Descriptive epidemiology of cardiorespiratory fitness in UK adults: The Fenland Study 94%
- Polygenic score for physical activity provides odds for multiple common diseases 94%
- Physical activity and posture profile of a South African cohort of middle-aged men and women as determined by integrated hip and thigh accelerometry 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.