Central Finland Health Care District Hospital District, Department of Medicine, Jyväskylä, Finland; Institute of Clinical Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, and the Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
Institute of Clinical Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, and the Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2022 Jun;97(6):1054-1073. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2022.02.029. Epub 2022 May 11.
To detail the magnitude and specificity of the association between cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and all-cause mortality risk.
Cohort studies with at least 1 year of follow-up were sought from inception until December 2021 in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and a manual search of relevant articles. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs were pooled using random-effects models. Quality of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool.
A total of 37 unique studies comprising of 2,258,029 participants with 108,613 all-cause mortality events were eligible. The pooled multivariable-adjusted RR for all-cause mortality comparing the top vs bottom tertiles of CRF levels was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.50 to 0.61). When CRF was expressed in metabolic equivalent task (MET) units, the corresponding pooled RR was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.50 to 0.62). For every 1-MET increase in CRF, the RR for all-cause mortality was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86 to 0.92). Strength of the association did not differ by publication year, age, sex, follow-up duration, CRF assessment method, or risk of bias.
Aggregate analysis of observational cohort studies confirms a strong inverse and independent association between CRF and all-cause mortality risk. The results suggest that guideline bodies should consider the inclusion of CRF in standard risk panels for mortality risk assessment.
详细说明心肺功能(CRF)与全因死亡率风险之间的关联程度和特异性。
从开始到 2021 年 12 月,在 MEDLINE、Embase、Web of Science 以及对相关文章的手动搜索中,寻找至少有 1 年随访的队列研究。使用随机效应模型汇总具有 95%置信区间的相对风险(RR)。使用推荐评估、制定和评估工具(Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool)评估证据质量。
共有 37 项独特的研究符合条件,共纳入 2258029 名参与者,发生 108613 例全因死亡事件。多变量调整后的全因死亡率比较,CRF 水平最高与最低三分位组的 RR 为 0.55(95%CI,0.50 至 0.61)。当 CRF 以代谢当量任务(MET)单位表示时,相应的汇总 RR 为 0.56(95%CI,0.50 至 0.62)。CRF 每增加 1-MET,全因死亡率的 RR 为 0.89(95%CI,0.86 至 0.92)。关联强度不因发表年份、年龄、性别、随访时间、CRF 评估方法或偏倚风险而异。
观察性队列研究的综合分析证实,CRF 与全因死亡率风险之间存在强烈的负相关和独立关联。结果表明,指南制定机构应考虑将 CRF 纳入死亡率风险评估的标准风险评估。