Global cardiovascular risk assessment and prevalence of metabolic syndrome among health's workers in Ramón Gonzalez Valencia University Hospital Bucaramanga, Colombia

Abstract

Objective. Assessing global cardiovascular risk and determining the prevalence of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular risk among University Hospital's workers.

Design. A cross over study design was used.

Setting. Ramón Gonzalez Valencia University Hospital.

Population. 414 University Hospital's workers

Materials. The data were collected by means of interviews with the participants, completion of a questionnaire by a trained person in the field of demographic data; personal and family history of cardiovascular risk, a physical examination for weight, height, hip and waist circumference, blood pressure, and laboratory measurements of lipid profiles and fasting blood sugar. Electrocardiograms were also performed. We calculated a 10-year cardiovascular risk according Framingham's tables and ILIB criteria. The prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome and cardiovascular risk were calculated according NCEP-ATP III and LatinAmerican ILIB criteria.

Results, mean age was 44.3 years, most were woman (79.2%), the studied populations were: nurse assistants (47.3%), medical doctors (6.3%) and nurses (9.4%). The prevalence of high blood pressure was 54%, central obesity 40.3%, overweight 46, 4% and obesity 21%; the prevalence of sedentary life style was 82.4%, dyslipidemia 24%, smokers 10.4%, impaired glucose tolerance (4.6%) and Diabetes Mellitus (1.6%). The 10-year global Cardiovascular risk was 2.2% (5.2% male, 1.4% female). According Latin-American ILIB 17.3% was at moderate risk of coronary disease and 3.3% was at high risk. However, according to ATP III 1, 9% was at moderate risk of coronary disease. The prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome was 17.3% (ILIB) and 13.2% (ATP III).

The population with the highest cardiovascular risk and worst metabolic markers were male medical doctors.

Conclusions. We found a high prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors in the studied population. There are mayor differences between ILIB and ATP III criteria, which may indicate greater sensitivity with the criteria of the ILIB for central obesity, index waist/hip, metabolic syndrome and the global cardiovascular risk