Abstract

Aims

We aimed to investigate whether the triglyceride–glucose (TyG) index, an easy-calculated and reliable surrogate of insulin resistance, was associated with the development of heart failure (HF) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction.

Methods and results

A total of 12 374 participants (mean age: 54.1 ± 5.7 years, male: 44.7%) free of history of HF and coronary heart disease at baseline from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study were included. The TyG index was calculated as ln[fasting triglyceride (mg/dL) × fasting glucose (mg/dL)/2]. The long-term TyG index was calculated as the updated cumulative average TyG index using all available TyG index from baseline to the events of HF or the end of follow-up. We evaluated the associations of both the baseline and the long-term TyG index with incident HF using Cox regression analysis. We also analysed the effect of the TyG index on LV structure and function among 4889 participants with echocardiographic data using multivariable linear regression analysis. There were 1958 incident HF cases over a median follow-up of 22.5 years. After adjusting for potential confounders, 1-SD (0.60) increase in the baseline TyG index was associated with a 15% higher risk of HF development [hazard ratio (HR): 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.10–1.21]. Compared with participants in the lowest quartile of the baseline TyG index, those in the highest quartile had a greater risk of incident HF [HR (95% CI): 1.25 (1.08–1.45)]. In terms of LV structure and function, a greater baseline TyG index was associated with adverse LV remodelling and LV dysfunction. Similar results were found for the long-term TyG index.

Conclusion

In a community-based cohort, we found that a greater TyG index was significantly associated with a higher risk of incident HF and impaired LV structure and function.

Increasing triglyceride-glucose index is associated with higher risk of incident heart failure.
Graphical Abstract

Increasing triglyceride-glucose index is associated with higher risk of incident heart failure.

See the editorial comment for this article ‘Heart sweet heart: cardiac long-term effects of sugar kisses’, by Marcello Ricardo Paulista Markus and Marcus Dörr, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwac087.

Introduction

Heart failure (HF) is a life-threatening disease and represents the final common pathway for varieties of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The prevalence of HF is continuously increasing worldwide, but effective treatment is still limited.1 Therefore, given the poor prognosis and high economic burden, early identification of individuals at high risk for HF and timely intervention have crucial importance. Previous studies have found that insulin resistance, a decrease of insulin efficiency with impaired uptake and utilization of glucose, may be involved in the pathogenesis of HF.2–4 Other studies also observed a significant relationship between insulin resistance and cardiac remodelling and dysfunction.5,6 However, as the ‘gold standard’ examination for insulin sensitivity, the hyperinsulinaemic-euglycaemic clamp test is time-consuming, costly, and invasive, leading to its limitation in clinical practice.7 The triglyceride–glucose (TyG) index, measured by fasting triglyceride and glucose, is a convenient, reliable, and valid surrogate marker of insulin resistance.8–10 The TyG index has been proven to have a great correlation with hyperinsulinaemia-euglycaemic clamps and other insulin resistance makers, such as the Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR).8,9 Previous studies indicated that the TyG index was independently associated with arterial stiffness,11,12 diabetes mellitus,13 and cardiovascular outcomes.14–16 However, few studies have been conducted to analyse the role of insulin resistance assessed by the TyG index on HF, and the relationship between the TyG index and left ventricular (LV) remodelling (high LV mass or high LV wall thickness) and function are still unclear.

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the association between the TyG index and the risk of developing HF in a large community-based cohort, using data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. We also analysed the association of the TyG index at middle age with late-life LV structure and function. We hypothesized that a higher level of the TyG index would be associated with an increased risk of incident HF and impaired LV structure and function.

Methods

Study design and population

The ARIC study is an ongoing prospective cohort study that was conducted in four US communities (Forsyth County, NC; Jackson, MS; suburban Minneapolis, MN; and Washington County, MD). A total of 15 792 participants aged 45–64 years were recruited between 1987 and 1989 (Visit 1), and subsequent follow-ups were Visit 2 (1990–92), Visit 3 (1993–95), Visit 4 (1996–98), Visit 5 (2011–13); and other examinations are ongoing. A detailed description of the study design has been published previously.17 The ARIC study has been approved by institutional review boards and registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00005131. All the participants enrolled in the study have provided their written informed consents.

For this current analysis, participants with prevalent HF or coronary heart disease (n = 1332), missing information regarding HF or coronary heart disease (n = 386), and missing data about covariates of interest (n = 1700) at Visit 1 (baseline) were excluded (Figure 1). A total of 12 374 participants were included for the analysis of the association between the baseline and the long-term TyG index with incident HF. Among these participants, a sample of 4889 people attended the 5th visit and underwent an echocardiographic examination.

Flowchart for the selection of study participants. ARIC, Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities; HF, heart failure; CHD, coronary heart disease; TyG, triglyceride–glucose index; LV, left ventricular.
Figure 1

Flowchart for the selection of study participants. ARIC, Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities; HF, heart failure; CHD, coronary heart disease; TyG, triglyceride–glucose index; LV, left ventricular.

Data collection and definitions

Demographic data and lifestyle including age, sex, race, drinking, and smoking status were collected by self-report at Visit 1 (1987–89). Drinking and smoking status were classified as current, former, or never. Specifically, alcohol consumption was ascertained by means of an interviewer-administered questionnaire, in which participants were asked if they currently drank alcoholic beverages and, if not, whether they had done so in the past. Blood pressure and heart rate were measured after a 5 min rest by trained interviewers. Medications were ascertained through self-reported usage during the previous 2 weeks. Plasma total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c), glucose, and insulin were measured by blood sample testing, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) was estimated by the Friedewald equation.18 The body mass index (BMI) was calculated as weight (kg) divided by height in squared (m2). Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was calculated by the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration creatinine equation.19 The HOMA-IR index was calculated as [fasting glucose (mg/dL)×fasting insulin (μIU/mL)/405].

Assessment of baseline and the long-term triglyceride–glucose index

The TyG index was calculated as ln[fasting triglyceride (mg/dL)×fasting glucose (mg/dL)/2].8 In the ARIC study, fasting triglyceride and fasting glucose were measured at each visit. The baseline TyG index was calculated using data from Visit 1 (baseline). The long-term TyG index was calculated as the updated cumulative average TyG index, using all available TyG index measurements from Visit 1 to the outcome events of HF or the end of follow-up.20

Ascertainment of incident heart failure

Participants in the ARIC study undergo active surveillance for incident cardiovascular events according to International Classification of Diseases codes. Incident HF was defined as the first HF hospitalization or death from HF, which were identified from the hospital discharge list or death certificate that showed an HF code (428.x) in any position.

Echocardiographic measurements of left ventricular structure and function

The echocardiographic assessment was performed using uniform equipment at Visit 5 by certified, dedicated, and trained sonographers according to a study-specific protocol.21 Quantitative measures of cardiac structure, systolic, and diastolic function were assessed by a central reading centre according to the American Society of Echocardiography recommendations.22 Left ventricular structure indexes included LV mass (LVM), LV mass index (LVMI), relative wall thickness (RWT), and LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV). LV hypertrophy (LVH) was defined as LVMI >115 g/m2 in men or LVMI >95 g/m2 in women. Left ventricular systolic functional indexes included LV ejection fraction (LVEF), global longitudinal strain (GLS), circumferential strain (CS). Left ventricular systolic dysfunction was defined as LVEF <50%. Left ventricular diastolic functional indexes included peak early transmitral velocity (E), peak late transmitral velocity (A), and early peak diastolic mitral annular velocity (e′). Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction was defined as E/e′ ≥13.23

Statistical analysis

We categorized participants by quartiles of the TyG index. Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± SD for normally distributed data or median (interquartile range) for skewed distributed data. Categorical variables were expressed as a number (percentage). To compare the difference among quartiles of the TyG index, the Wilcoxon or Kruskal–Wallis test was used for continuous variables and the χ2 test for categorical variables. We also performed Pearson’s correlation analysis to evaluate the relationship between the TyG index and cardiometabolic risk factors [including HOMA-IR, BMI, TC, LDL-c, HDL-c, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and eGFR].

Kaplan–Meier estimates were used to evaluate the incidence rate of HF by TyG index quartiles and the differences in estimates were compared by the log-rank test. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regressions were constructed to assess the association between the baseline and the long-term TyG index with the risk of incident HF by calculating the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Three models were used to adjust for potential confounders: Model 1 adjusted for age, sex, and race; Model 2 further adjusted for smoking status, drinking status, hypertension, diabetes, anti-hypertensive medication, and lipid-lowering medication; Model 3 further adjusted for BMI, eGFR, SBP, and LDL-c. In addition, restricted cubic splines with three knots were used to examine the non-linear dose–response association between the baseline and the long-term TyG index with incident HF. To evaluate the robustness of the association, we performed pre-specified subgroup analyses stratifying by age, gender, race, BMI, hypertension, and diabetes, respectively. To determine the optimal cut-off value of the TyG index for predicting incident HF, receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed.

Echocardiographic data about LV structure and function were compared and displayed as a number (proportion) for categorical variables and mean ± SD for continuous variables. Using multivariable linear regression models, we evaluated the association between both the baseline and the long-term TyG index with echocardiographic measures of LV structure and function. Statistical differences in the association were adjusted for demographics and CVD risk factors: age, sex, race, smoking status, drinking status, hypertension, diabetes, BMI, LDL-c, a lipid-lowering drug, eGFR, SBP, and anti-hypertensive drug. In the presence of non-linear correlation, restricted cubic splines were performed to analyse the associations.

All analyses were performed using Stata (version 14.0, StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA) and R statistical software (version 4.0.2, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). A two-sided P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Baseline characteristics

This study included a total of 12 374 participants (mean age: 54.1 ± 5.7 years, male sex: 44.7%), and the baseline characteristics across quartiles of the baseline TyG index are shown in Table 1. Participants with a higher baseline TyG index were older, more often male and white race; they had higher prevalence of comorbidities (including hypertension and diabetes) and were more prone to anti-hypertensive medication and lipid-lowering drugs; they had higher levels of BMI, SBP, DBP, heart rate, fasting glucose, fasting triglyceride, insulin, TC, and LDL-c, but lower levels of HDL-c, eGFR, and physical activity (all P < 0.001). Results were similar when participants were categorized by the long-term TyG index (see Supplementary material online, Table S1). In the Pearson’s correlation analysis, the baseline TyG index was positively correlated with HOMA-IR, TC, LDL-c, SBP, and DBP, but negatively with HDL-c and eGFR (see Supplementary material online, Table S2).

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of participants by quartiles of the triglyceride–glucose index at baseline

CharacteristicsQuartile 1
(n = 3097)
Quartile 2
(n = 3088)
Quartile 3
(n = 3094)
Quartile 4
(n = 3095)
P value
TyG index8.0 ± 0.28.4 ± 0.18.8 ± 0.19.5 ± 0.4<0.001
Demography
 Age, years52.9 ± 5.754.0 ± 5.854.6 ± 5.754.9 ± 5.7<0.001
 Male1109 (35.8)1306 (42.3)1487 (48.1)1634 (52.8)<0.001
 White2178 (70.3)2349 (76.1)2467 (79.7)2520 (81.4)<0.001
Smoking status<0.001
 Current smoker684 (22.1)801 (25.9)875 (28.3)813 (26.3)
 Former smoker897 (29.0)971 (31.4)1000 (32.3)1108 (35.8)
 Never smoker1516 (49.0)1316 (42.6)1219 (39.4)1174 (37.9)
Drinking status0.056
 Current drinker1847 (59.6)1804 (58.4)1765 (57.0)1778 (57.4)
 Former drinker492 (15.9)535 (17.3)574 (18.6)584 (18.9)
 Never drinker758 (24.5)749 (24.3)755 (24.4)733 (23.7)
Comorbidities
 Hypertension662 (21.4)833 (27.0)1008 (32.6)1363 (44.0)<0.001
 Diabetes41 (1.3)81 (2.6)129 (4.2)684 (22.1)<0.001
Physical examination
 SBP, mmHg117.1 ± 18.9119.5 ± 18.3121.4 ± 17.9125.0 ± 17.9<0.001
 DBP, mmHg72.2 ± 11.573.1 ± 11.173.7 ± 10.975.1 ± 10.7<0.001
 Heart rate, b.p.m.64.7 ± 9.565.9 ± 9.766.6 ± 10.069.0 ± 10.7<0.001
 BMI, kg/m225.6 ± 4.826.8 ± 5.027.9 ± 5.129.4 ± 5.0<0.001
 Waist-to-hip ratio0.88 ± 0.080.91 ± 0.070.94 ± 0.070.97 ± 0.06<0.001
Laboratory values
 Fasting glucose, mg/dL94.1 ± 8.598.7 ± 11.4102.7 ± 14.3127.8 ± 56.7<0.001
 Triglyceride, mg/dL63.2 ± 12.393.7 ± 12.9130.5 ± 19.8228.9 ± 117.9<0.001
 Insulin, μIU/mL7.8 ± 6.610.0 ± 9.712.9 ± 13.819.6 ± 30.5<0.001
 TC, mg/dL197.2 ± 36.2209.2 ± 37.8220.8 ± 39.0230.9 ± 44.0<0.001
 LDL-c, mg/dL121.2 ± 34.2135.5 ± 37.3146.5 ± 37.8139.3 ± 50.3<0.001
 HDL-c, mg/dL63.4 ± 17.755.0 ± 15.548.3 ± 13.941.5 ± 12.3<0.001
 eGFR, mL/min/1.73m2105.8 ± 14.8102.5 ± 14.3101.0 ± 15.0100.3 ± 16.2<0.001
 HOMA-IR1.8 ± 1.52.5 ± 4.03.4 ± 5.57.1 ± 16.8<0.001
Medication
 Anti-hypertensive medication507 (16.4)651 (21.1)816 (26.4)1147 (37.1)<0.001
 Lipid-lowering medication33 (1.1)64 (2.1)87 (2.8)135 (4.4)<0.001
CharacteristicsQuartile 1
(n = 3097)
Quartile 2
(n = 3088)
Quartile 3
(n = 3094)
Quartile 4
(n = 3095)
P value
TyG index8.0 ± 0.28.4 ± 0.18.8 ± 0.19.5 ± 0.4<0.001
Demography
 Age, years52.9 ± 5.754.0 ± 5.854.6 ± 5.754.9 ± 5.7<0.001
 Male1109 (35.8)1306 (42.3)1487 (48.1)1634 (52.8)<0.001
 White2178 (70.3)2349 (76.1)2467 (79.7)2520 (81.4)<0.001
Smoking status<0.001
 Current smoker684 (22.1)801 (25.9)875 (28.3)813 (26.3)
 Former smoker897 (29.0)971 (31.4)1000 (32.3)1108 (35.8)
 Never smoker1516 (49.0)1316 (42.6)1219 (39.4)1174 (37.9)
Drinking status0.056
 Current drinker1847 (59.6)1804 (58.4)1765 (57.0)1778 (57.4)
 Former drinker492 (15.9)535 (17.3)574 (18.6)584 (18.9)
 Never drinker758 (24.5)749 (24.3)755 (24.4)733 (23.7)
Comorbidities
 Hypertension662 (21.4)833 (27.0)1008 (32.6)1363 (44.0)<0.001
 Diabetes41 (1.3)81 (2.6)129 (4.2)684 (22.1)<0.001
Physical examination
 SBP, mmHg117.1 ± 18.9119.5 ± 18.3121.4 ± 17.9125.0 ± 17.9<0.001
 DBP, mmHg72.2 ± 11.573.1 ± 11.173.7 ± 10.975.1 ± 10.7<0.001
 Heart rate, b.p.m.64.7 ± 9.565.9 ± 9.766.6 ± 10.069.0 ± 10.7<0.001
 BMI, kg/m225.6 ± 4.826.8 ± 5.027.9 ± 5.129.4 ± 5.0<0.001
 Waist-to-hip ratio0.88 ± 0.080.91 ± 0.070.94 ± 0.070.97 ± 0.06<0.001
Laboratory values
 Fasting glucose, mg/dL94.1 ± 8.598.7 ± 11.4102.7 ± 14.3127.8 ± 56.7<0.001
 Triglyceride, mg/dL63.2 ± 12.393.7 ± 12.9130.5 ± 19.8228.9 ± 117.9<0.001
 Insulin, μIU/mL7.8 ± 6.610.0 ± 9.712.9 ± 13.819.6 ± 30.5<0.001
 TC, mg/dL197.2 ± 36.2209.2 ± 37.8220.8 ± 39.0230.9 ± 44.0<0.001
 LDL-c, mg/dL121.2 ± 34.2135.5 ± 37.3146.5 ± 37.8139.3 ± 50.3<0.001
 HDL-c, mg/dL63.4 ± 17.755.0 ± 15.548.3 ± 13.941.5 ± 12.3<0.001
 eGFR, mL/min/1.73m2105.8 ± 14.8102.5 ± 14.3101.0 ± 15.0100.3 ± 16.2<0.001
 HOMA-IR1.8 ± 1.52.5 ± 4.03.4 ± 5.57.1 ± 16.8<0.001
Medication
 Anti-hypertensive medication507 (16.4)651 (21.1)816 (26.4)1147 (37.1)<0.001
 Lipid-lowering medication33 (1.1)64 (2.1)87 (2.8)135 (4.4)<0.001

TyG, triglyceride-glucose; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; BMI, body mass index; TC, total cholesterol; LDL-c, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; HDL-c, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of participants by quartiles of the triglyceride–glucose index at baseline

CharacteristicsQuartile 1
(n = 3097)
Quartile 2
(n = 3088)
Quartile 3
(n = 3094)
Quartile 4
(n = 3095)
P value
TyG index8.0 ± 0.28.4 ± 0.18.8 ± 0.19.5 ± 0.4<0.001
Demography
 Age, years52.9 ± 5.754.0 ± 5.854.6 ± 5.754.9 ± 5.7<0.001
 Male1109 (35.8)1306 (42.3)1487 (48.1)1634 (52.8)<0.001
 White2178 (70.3)2349 (76.1)2467 (79.7)2520 (81.4)<0.001
Smoking status<0.001
 Current smoker684 (22.1)801 (25.9)875 (28.3)813 (26.3)
 Former smoker897 (29.0)971 (31.4)1000 (32.3)1108 (35.8)
 Never smoker1516 (49.0)1316 (42.6)1219 (39.4)1174 (37.9)
Drinking status0.056
 Current drinker1847 (59.6)1804 (58.4)1765 (57.0)1778 (57.4)
 Former drinker492 (15.9)535 (17.3)574 (18.6)584 (18.9)
 Never drinker758 (24.5)749 (24.3)755 (24.4)733 (23.7)
Comorbidities
 Hypertension662 (21.4)833 (27.0)1008 (32.6)1363 (44.0)<0.001
 Diabetes41 (1.3)81 (2.6)129 (4.2)684 (22.1)<0.001
Physical examination
 SBP, mmHg117.1 ± 18.9119.5 ± 18.3121.4 ± 17.9125.0 ± 17.9<0.001
 DBP, mmHg72.2 ± 11.573.1 ± 11.173.7 ± 10.975.1 ± 10.7<0.001
 Heart rate, b.p.m.64.7 ± 9.565.9 ± 9.766.6 ± 10.069.0 ± 10.7<0.001
 BMI, kg/m225.6 ± 4.826.8 ± 5.027.9 ± 5.129.4 ± 5.0<0.001
 Waist-to-hip ratio0.88 ± 0.080.91 ± 0.070.94 ± 0.070.97 ± 0.06<0.001
Laboratory values
 Fasting glucose, mg/dL94.1 ± 8.598.7 ± 11.4102.7 ± 14.3127.8 ± 56.7<0.001
 Triglyceride, mg/dL63.2 ± 12.393.7 ± 12.9130.5 ± 19.8228.9 ± 117.9<0.001
 Insulin, μIU/mL7.8 ± 6.610.0 ± 9.712.9 ± 13.819.6 ± 30.5<0.001
 TC, mg/dL197.2 ± 36.2209.2 ± 37.8220.8 ± 39.0230.9 ± 44.0<0.001
 LDL-c, mg/dL121.2 ± 34.2135.5 ± 37.3146.5 ± 37.8139.3 ± 50.3<0.001
 HDL-c, mg/dL63.4 ± 17.755.0 ± 15.548.3 ± 13.941.5 ± 12.3<0.001
 eGFR, mL/min/1.73m2105.8 ± 14.8102.5 ± 14.3101.0 ± 15.0100.3 ± 16.2<0.001
 HOMA-IR1.8 ± 1.52.5 ± 4.03.4 ± 5.57.1 ± 16.8<0.001
Medication
 Anti-hypertensive medication507 (16.4)651 (21.1)816 (26.4)1147 (37.1)<0.001
 Lipid-lowering medication33 (1.1)64 (2.1)87 (2.8)135 (4.4)<0.001
CharacteristicsQuartile 1
(n = 3097)
Quartile 2
(n = 3088)
Quartile 3
(n = 3094)
Quartile 4
(n = 3095)
P value
TyG index8.0 ± 0.28.4 ± 0.18.8 ± 0.19.5 ± 0.4<0.001
Demography
 Age, years52.9 ± 5.754.0 ± 5.854.6 ± 5.754.9 ± 5.7<0.001
 Male1109 (35.8)1306 (42.3)1487 (48.1)1634 (52.8)<0.001
 White2178 (70.3)2349 (76.1)2467 (79.7)2520 (81.4)<0.001
Smoking status<0.001
 Current smoker684 (22.1)801 (25.9)875 (28.3)813 (26.3)
 Former smoker897 (29.0)971 (31.4)1000 (32.3)1108 (35.8)
 Never smoker1516 (49.0)1316 (42.6)1219 (39.4)1174 (37.9)
Drinking status0.056
 Current drinker1847 (59.6)1804 (58.4)1765 (57.0)1778 (57.4)
 Former drinker492 (15.9)535 (17.3)574 (18.6)584 (18.9)
 Never drinker758 (24.5)749 (24.3)755 (24.4)733 (23.7)
Comorbidities
 Hypertension662 (21.4)833 (27.0)1008 (32.6)1363 (44.0)<0.001
 Diabetes41 (1.3)81 (2.6)129 (4.2)684 (22.1)<0.001
Physical examination
 SBP, mmHg117.1 ± 18.9119.5 ± 18.3121.4 ± 17.9125.0 ± 17.9<0.001
 DBP, mmHg72.2 ± 11.573.1 ± 11.173.7 ± 10.975.1 ± 10.7<0.001
 Heart rate, b.p.m.64.7 ± 9.565.9 ± 9.766.6 ± 10.069.0 ± 10.7<0.001
 BMI, kg/m225.6 ± 4.826.8 ± 5.027.9 ± 5.129.4 ± 5.0<0.001
 Waist-to-hip ratio0.88 ± 0.080.91 ± 0.070.94 ± 0.070.97 ± 0.06<0.001
Laboratory values
 Fasting glucose, mg/dL94.1 ± 8.598.7 ± 11.4102.7 ± 14.3127.8 ± 56.7<0.001
 Triglyceride, mg/dL63.2 ± 12.393.7 ± 12.9130.5 ± 19.8228.9 ± 117.9<0.001
 Insulin, μIU/mL7.8 ± 6.610.0 ± 9.712.9 ± 13.819.6 ± 30.5<0.001
 TC, mg/dL197.2 ± 36.2209.2 ± 37.8220.8 ± 39.0230.9 ± 44.0<0.001
 LDL-c, mg/dL121.2 ± 34.2135.5 ± 37.3146.5 ± 37.8139.3 ± 50.3<0.001
 HDL-c, mg/dL63.4 ± 17.755.0 ± 15.548.3 ± 13.941.5 ± 12.3<0.001
 eGFR, mL/min/1.73m2105.8 ± 14.8102.5 ± 14.3101.0 ± 15.0100.3 ± 16.2<0.001
 HOMA-IR1.8 ± 1.52.5 ± 4.03.4 ± 5.57.1 ± 16.8<0.001
Medication
 Anti-hypertensive medication507 (16.4)651 (21.1)816 (26.4)1147 (37.1)<0.001
 Lipid-lowering medication33 (1.1)64 (2.1)87 (2.8)135 (4.4)<0.001

TyG, triglyceride-glucose; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; BMI, body mass index; TC, total cholesterol; LDL-c, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; HDL-c, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate.

Associations between the baseline and the long-term triglyceride–glucose index with incident heart failure

During a median follow-up of 22.5 years (range from 0.04 to 25.11 years), 1958 cases (15.8%) of HF occurred. In the model that measured the baseline TyG index as a continuous variable, per 1-SD increase (corresponding to 0.60) in the baseline TyG index was associated with a 15.0% higher rate of incident HF [HR = 1.15 (1.10–1.21), P < 0.001], after adjusting for all the covariates in Model 3 (Table 2). When categorizing participants by quartiles of the baseline TyG index, the highest risk of incident HF was observed in the highest TyG index quartile (Quartile 4) (Table 2, Figure 2). In the full-adjusted model, the HR (95% CI) for incident HF comparing the fourth quartile with the first quartile was 1.25 (1.08–1.45, P = 0.003) (Table 2). Similar results were observed for the long-term TyG index. A higher level of the long-term TyG index was associated with an increased risk of incident HF (Table 2, Figure 2). Restricted cubic splines regression models showed there existed linear relationships between the baseline and the long-term TyG index with incident HF, and the risk of HF increased in participants with a higher TyG index both at baseline and at long-term trend (Figure 3).

Cumulative incidence of incident heart failure by quartiles of the baseline (A) and the long-term (B) triglyceride–glucose index.
Figure 2

Cumulative incidence of incident heart failure by quartiles of the baseline (A) and the long-term (B) triglyceride–glucose index.

Adjusted hazard ratios of incident heart failure by the baseline (A) and the long-term (B) triglyceride–glucose index. Each hazard ratio was compared with a median triglyceride–glucose index of 8.6 (A) and 8.7 (B), respectively. Both P for linearity <0.01.
Figure 3

Adjusted hazard ratios of incident heart failure by the baseline (A) and the long-term (B) triglyceride–glucose index. Each hazard ratio was compared with a median triglyceride–glucose index of 8.6 (A) and 8.7 (B), respectively. Both P for linearity <0.01.

Table 2

Risk of incident heart failure for baseline and long-term triglyceride-glucose index

Model 1Model 2Model 3
n/NHR (95% CI)P valueHR (95% CI)P valueHR (95% CI)P value
Baseline triglyceride–glucose index
 Per 1-SD (0.60)1958/123741.49 (1.43–1.56)<0.0011.24 (1.18–1.30)<0.0011.15 (1.10–1.21)<0.001
 Quartiles
  Quartile 1 (<8.2)317/3097ReferenceReferenceReference
  Quartile 2 (≥8.2, <8.6)401/30881.22 (1.05–1.42)0.0081.10 (0.95–1.27)0.2220.99 (0.86–1.15)0.932
  Quartile 3 (≥8.6, <9.0)504/30941.55 (1.35–1.79)<0.0011.26 (1.10–1.46)0.0011.08 (0.93–1.25)0.308
  Quartile 4 (≥9.0)736/30952.45 (2.15–2.80)<0.0011.58 (1.37–1.82)<0.0011.25 (1.08–1.45)0.003
  P for trend<0.001<0.001<0.001
Long-term TyG index
 Per 1-SD (0.54)1958/123741.54 (1.48–1.61)<0.0011.29 (1.23–1.36)<0.0011.19 (1.14–1.26)<0.001
 Quartiles
  Quartile 1 (<0.84)331/3094ReferenceReferenceReference
  Quartile 2 (≥8.4, <8.7)418/30931.31 (1.13–1.51)<0.0011.19 (1.03–1.37)0.0201.08 (0.93–1.25)0.330
  Quartile 3 (≥8.7, <9.1)460/30941.44 (1.25–1.67)<0.0011.18 (1.02–1.36)0.0251.01 (0.87–1.17)0.885
  Quartile 4 (≥9.1)749/30932.62 (2.30–2.98)<0.0011.70 (1.47–1.95)<0.0011.36 (1.18–1.57)<0.001
  P for trend<0.001<0.001<0.001
Model 1Model 2Model 3
n/NHR (95% CI)P valueHR (95% CI)P valueHR (95% CI)P value
Baseline triglyceride–glucose index
 Per 1-SD (0.60)1958/123741.49 (1.43–1.56)<0.0011.24 (1.18–1.30)<0.0011.15 (1.10–1.21)<0.001
 Quartiles
  Quartile 1 (<8.2)317/3097ReferenceReferenceReference
  Quartile 2 (≥8.2, <8.6)401/30881.22 (1.05–1.42)0.0081.10 (0.95–1.27)0.2220.99 (0.86–1.15)0.932
  Quartile 3 (≥8.6, <9.0)504/30941.55 (1.35–1.79)<0.0011.26 (1.10–1.46)0.0011.08 (0.93–1.25)0.308
  Quartile 4 (≥9.0)736/30952.45 (2.15–2.80)<0.0011.58 (1.37–1.82)<0.0011.25 (1.08–1.45)0.003
  P for trend<0.001<0.001<0.001
Long-term TyG index
 Per 1-SD (0.54)1958/123741.54 (1.48–1.61)<0.0011.29 (1.23–1.36)<0.0011.19 (1.14–1.26)<0.001
 Quartiles
  Quartile 1 (<0.84)331/3094ReferenceReferenceReference
  Quartile 2 (≥8.4, <8.7)418/30931.31 (1.13–1.51)<0.0011.19 (1.03–1.37)0.0201.08 (0.93–1.25)0.330
  Quartile 3 (≥8.7, <9.1)460/30941.44 (1.25–1.67)<0.0011.18 (1.02–1.36)0.0251.01 (0.87–1.17)0.885
  Quartile 4 (≥9.1)749/30932.62 (2.30–2.98)<0.0011.70 (1.47–1.95)<0.0011.36 (1.18–1.57)<0.001
  P for trend<0.001<0.001<0.001

Model 1: Adjusted for baseline age, race, and sex.

Model 2: Adjusted for Model 1 plus smoking status, drinking status, hypertension, diabetes, anti-hypertensive medication, and lipid-lowering medication.

Model 3: Adjusted for Model 2 plus body mass index, estimated glomerular filtration rate, systolic blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

TyG, triglyceride-glucose; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; SD, standard deviation.

Table 2

Risk of incident heart failure for baseline and long-term triglyceride-glucose index

Model 1Model 2Model 3
n/NHR (95% CI)P valueHR (95% CI)P valueHR (95% CI)P value
Baseline triglyceride–glucose index
 Per 1-SD (0.60)1958/123741.49 (1.43–1.56)<0.0011.24 (1.18–1.30)<0.0011.15 (1.10–1.21)<0.001
 Quartiles
  Quartile 1 (<8.2)317/3097ReferenceReferenceReference
  Quartile 2 (≥8.2, <8.6)401/30881.22 (1.05–1.42)0.0081.10 (0.95–1.27)0.2220.99 (0.86–1.15)0.932
  Quartile 3 (≥8.6, <9.0)504/30941.55 (1.35–1.79)<0.0011.26 (1.10–1.46)0.0011.08 (0.93–1.25)0.308
  Quartile 4 (≥9.0)736/30952.45 (2.15–2.80)<0.0011.58 (1.37–1.82)<0.0011.25 (1.08–1.45)0.003
  P for trend<0.001<0.001<0.001
Long-term TyG index
 Per 1-SD (0.54)1958/123741.54 (1.48–1.61)<0.0011.29 (1.23–1.36)<0.0011.19 (1.14–1.26)<0.001
 Quartiles
  Quartile 1 (<0.84)331/3094ReferenceReferenceReference
  Quartile 2 (≥8.4, <8.7)418/30931.31 (1.13–1.51)<0.0011.19 (1.03–1.37)0.0201.08 (0.93–1.25)0.330
  Quartile 3 (≥8.7, <9.1)460/30941.44 (1.25–1.67)<0.0011.18 (1.02–1.36)0.0251.01 (0.87–1.17)0.885
  Quartile 4 (≥9.1)749/30932.62 (2.30–2.98)<0.0011.70 (1.47–1.95)<0.0011.36 (1.18–1.57)<0.001
  P for trend<0.001<0.001<0.001
Model 1Model 2Model 3
n/NHR (95% CI)P valueHR (95% CI)P valueHR (95% CI)P value
Baseline triglyceride–glucose index
 Per 1-SD (0.60)1958/123741.49 (1.43–1.56)<0.0011.24 (1.18–1.30)<0.0011.15 (1.10–1.21)<0.001
 Quartiles
  Quartile 1 (<8.2)317/3097ReferenceReferenceReference
  Quartile 2 (≥8.2, <8.6)401/30881.22 (1.05–1.42)0.0081.10 (0.95–1.27)0.2220.99 (0.86–1.15)0.932
  Quartile 3 (≥8.6, <9.0)504/30941.55 (1.35–1.79)<0.0011.26 (1.10–1.46)0.0011.08 (0.93–1.25)0.308
  Quartile 4 (≥9.0)736/30952.45 (2.15–2.80)<0.0011.58 (1.37–1.82)<0.0011.25 (1.08–1.45)0.003
  P for trend<0.001<0.001<0.001
Long-term TyG index
 Per 1-SD (0.54)1958/123741.54 (1.48–1.61)<0.0011.29 (1.23–1.36)<0.0011.19 (1.14–1.26)<0.001
 Quartiles
  Quartile 1 (<0.84)331/3094ReferenceReferenceReference
  Quartile 2 (≥8.4, <8.7)418/30931.31 (1.13–1.51)<0.0011.19 (1.03–1.37)0.0201.08 (0.93–1.25)0.330
  Quartile 3 (≥8.7, <9.1)460/30941.44 (1.25–1.67)<0.0011.18 (1.02–1.36)0.0251.01 (0.87–1.17)0.885
  Quartile 4 (≥9.1)749/30932.62 (2.30–2.98)<0.0011.70 (1.47–1.95)<0.0011.36 (1.18–1.57)<0.001
  P for trend<0.001<0.001<0.001

Model 1: Adjusted for baseline age, race, and sex.

Model 2: Adjusted for Model 1 plus smoking status, drinking status, hypertension, diabetes, anti-hypertensive medication, and lipid-lowering medication.

Model 3: Adjusted for Model 2 plus body mass index, estimated glomerular filtration rate, systolic blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

TyG, triglyceride-glucose; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; SD, standard deviation.

Results of subgroup analyses are shown in Figure 4. When participants were stratified by gender (male or female), BMI (<30 or ≥30 kg/m2), hypertension (yes or no), and diabetes (yes or no), consistent associations were found between the baseline TyG index and incident HF. However, there was a significant interaction in the age subgroup (P for interaction <0.001) and race subgroup (P for interaction = 0.015). The HR (95% CI) of a higher baseline TyG index on HF was more prominent in participants aged <60 years [HR = 1.36 (1.23–1.50)] than those aged ≥60 years [HR = 1.09 (0.94–1.27)], and more prominent in the black race [HR = 1.21 (1.11–1.32)] than white race [HR = 1.11 (1.03–1.19)]. Similar results of subgroup analyses were observed in the association between the long-term TyG index and incident HF (see Supplementary material online, Table S3).

Subgroup analysis of the association between the baseline triglyceride–glucose index and the incident HF. Pre-specified subgroups by age (<60 or ≥60 years), gender (male or female), race (white or black), body mass index (<30 or ≥30 kg/m2), hypertension (yes or no), and diabetes mellitus (yes or no) were analysed.
Figure 4

Subgroup analysis of the association between the baseline triglyceride–glucose index and the incident HF. Pre-specified subgroups by age (<60 or ≥60 years), gender (male or female), race (white or black), body mass index (<30 or ≥30 kg/m2), hypertension (yes or no), and diabetes mellitus (yes or no) were analysed.

The area under ROC curves of the TyG index for predicting the occurrence of HF was 0.598 (95% CI: 0.567–0.630; P < 0.001), and the cut-off value of the TyG index was 8.36 (see Supplementary material online, Figure S1).

Associations between the baseline and the long-term triglyceride–glucose index with left ventricular structure and function

A total of 4889 participants with available echocardiographic data were included for the analysis. Echocardiographic characteristics are shown in Table 3. After adjusting for potential covariates, a greater baseline TyG index was significantly associated with altered LV structure with higher RWT (coefficient: 0.005 cm; P = 0.027) and LVM/LVEDV ratio (coefficient: 0.134%; P < 0.001). For LV systolic function, the greater baseline TyG index had more favourable LVEF (coefficient: 0.457%; P = 0.021). For LV diastolic function, the greater baseline TyG index was independently associated with decreasing E/A ratio (coefficient: −0.029%; P = 0.001) and increasing E/e′ ratio (coefficient: 0.510%; P < 0.001). These relationships were stronger for the long-term TyG index, which was further associated with LVMI (coefficient: 1.319 g/m2; P = 0.040) and GLS (coefficient: 0.315%; P < 0.001) (Table 4). However, the relationship between the TyG index and LV structure and function were modified by sex group, with a more significant effect observed in female than male (see Supplementary material online, Tables S4 andS5).

Table 3

Characteristics of the left ventricular structure and function stratified by baseline and long-term triglyceride–glucose levels

Quartile 1Quartile 2Quartile 3Quartile 4P value
Baseline triglyceride-glucose index
 LVMI, g/m276.65 ± 19.8777.50 ± 19.8481.35 ± 21.2083.55 ± 21.76<0.001
 RWT, cm0.42 ± 0.080.42 ± 0.070.43 ± 0.070.43 ± 0.080.014
 LVM/LVEDV, %1.80 ± 0.451.85 ± 0.491.90 ± 0.521.94 ± 0.55<0.001
 LVEF, %65.66 ± 6.4965.36 ± 6.3164.66 ± 7.0565.01 ± 7.000.002
 GLS, %−18.16 ± 2.53−18.03 ± 2.59−17.87 ± 2.62−17.61 ± 2.56<0.001
 CS, %−27.87 ± 3.78−27.96 ± 3.71−27.88 ± 3.86−27.58 ± 4.120.191
E/A ratio, %0.89 ± 0.300.87 ± 0.300.85 ± 0.290.84 ± 0.30<0.001
E/e′ ratio, %10.89 ± 3.6311.12 ± 4.1111.40 ± 4.1811.95 ± 4.68<0.001
 LV hypertension107 (8.6)116 (9.7)160 (13.1)154 (12.6)<0.001
 LV systolic dysfunction26 (2.1)27 (2.3)51 (4.3)34 (2.9)0.006
 LV diastolic dysfunction279 (22.3)288 (24.1)312 (25.5)374 (30.7)<0.001
Long-term TyG index
 LVMI, g/m276.26 ± 19.0678.00 ± 20.9981.63 ± 21.4983.11 ± 21.14<0.001
 RWT, cm0.42 ± 0.080.42 ± 0.070.43 ± 0.070.43 ± 0.070.002
 LVM/LVEDV, %1.78 ± 0.471.82 ± 0.471.91 ± 0.501.98 ± 0.56<0.001
 LVEF, %65.55 ± 6.3465.09 ± 6.9164.92 ± 6.9465.14 ± 6.710.130
 GLS, %−18.16 ± 2.47−18.11 ± 2.66−17.77 ± 2.59−17.63 ± 2.56<0.001
 CS, %−27.89 ± 3.70−28.01 ± 3.89−27.72 ± 3.81−27.67 ± 4.070.214
E/A ratio, %0.90 ± 0.310.89 ± 0.310.84 ± 0.270.84 ± 0.29<0.001
E/e′ ratio, %10.75 ± 3.8011.28 ± 4.1611.34 ± 3.8511.98 ± 4.76<0.001
 LV hypertension100 (8.2)124 (10.1)151 (12.4)162 (13.3)<0.001
 LV systolic dysfunction28 (2.3)42 (3.5)43 (3.6)25 (2.1)0.053
 LV diastolic dysfunction255 (20.9)312 (25.5)309 (25.3)377 (30.9)<0.001
Quartile 1Quartile 2Quartile 3Quartile 4P value
Baseline triglyceride-glucose index
 LVMI, g/m276.65 ± 19.8777.50 ± 19.8481.35 ± 21.2083.55 ± 21.76<0.001
 RWT, cm0.42 ± 0.080.42 ± 0.070.43 ± 0.070.43 ± 0.080.014
 LVM/LVEDV, %1.80 ± 0.451.85 ± 0.491.90 ± 0.521.94 ± 0.55<0.001
 LVEF, %65.66 ± 6.4965.36 ± 6.3164.66 ± 7.0565.01 ± 7.000.002
 GLS, %−18.16 ± 2.53−18.03 ± 2.59−17.87 ± 2.62−17.61 ± 2.56<0.001
 CS, %−27.87 ± 3.78−27.96 ± 3.71−27.88 ± 3.86−27.58 ± 4.120.191
E/A ratio, %0.89 ± 0.300.87 ± 0.300.85 ± 0.290.84 ± 0.30<0.001
E/e′ ratio, %10.89 ± 3.6311.12 ± 4.1111.40 ± 4.1811.95 ± 4.68<0.001
 LV hypertension107 (8.6)116 (9.7)160 (13.1)154 (12.6)<0.001
 LV systolic dysfunction26 (2.1)27 (2.3)51 (4.3)34 (2.9)0.006
 LV diastolic dysfunction279 (22.3)288 (24.1)312 (25.5)374 (30.7)<0.001
Long-term TyG index
 LVMI, g/m276.26 ± 19.0678.00 ± 20.9981.63 ± 21.4983.11 ± 21.14<0.001
 RWT, cm0.42 ± 0.080.42 ± 0.070.43 ± 0.070.43 ± 0.070.002
 LVM/LVEDV, %1.78 ± 0.471.82 ± 0.471.91 ± 0.501.98 ± 0.56<0.001
 LVEF, %65.55 ± 6.3465.09 ± 6.9164.92 ± 6.9465.14 ± 6.710.130
 GLS, %−18.16 ± 2.47−18.11 ± 2.66−17.77 ± 2.59−17.63 ± 2.56<0.001
 CS, %−27.89 ± 3.70−28.01 ± 3.89−27.72 ± 3.81−27.67 ± 4.070.214
E/A ratio, %0.90 ± 0.310.89 ± 0.310.84 ± 0.270.84 ± 0.29<0.001
E/e′ ratio, %10.75 ± 3.8011.28 ± 4.1611.34 ± 3.8511.98 ± 4.76<0.001
 LV hypertension100 (8.2)124 (10.1)151 (12.4)162 (13.3)<0.001
 LV systolic dysfunction28 (2.3)42 (3.5)43 (3.6)25 (2.1)0.053
 LV diastolic dysfunction255 (20.9)312 (25.5)309 (25.3)377 (30.9)<0.001

LV, left ventricular; LVMI, left ventricular mass index; RWT, relative wall thickness; LVM, left ventricular mass; LVEDV, left ventricular end-diastolic volume; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; GLS, global longitudinal strain; CS, circumferential strain.

Table 3

Characteristics of the left ventricular structure and function stratified by baseline and long-term triglyceride–glucose levels

Quartile 1Quartile 2Quartile 3Quartile 4P value
Baseline triglyceride-glucose index
 LVMI, g/m276.65 ± 19.8777.50 ± 19.8481.35 ± 21.2083.55 ± 21.76<0.001
 RWT, cm0.42 ± 0.080.42 ± 0.070.43 ± 0.070.43 ± 0.080.014
 LVM/LVEDV, %1.80 ± 0.451.85 ± 0.491.90 ± 0.521.94 ± 0.55<0.001
 LVEF, %65.66 ± 6.4965.36 ± 6.3164.66 ± 7.0565.01 ± 7.000.002
 GLS, %−18.16 ± 2.53−18.03 ± 2.59−17.87 ± 2.62−17.61 ± 2.56<0.001
 CS, %−27.87 ± 3.78−27.96 ± 3.71−27.88 ± 3.86−27.58 ± 4.120.191
E/A ratio, %0.89 ± 0.300.87 ± 0.300.85 ± 0.290.84 ± 0.30<0.001
E/e′ ratio, %10.89 ± 3.6311.12 ± 4.1111.40 ± 4.1811.95 ± 4.68<0.001
 LV hypertension107 (8.6)116 (9.7)160 (13.1)154 (12.6)<0.001
 LV systolic dysfunction26 (2.1)27 (2.3)51 (4.3)34 (2.9)0.006
 LV diastolic dysfunction279 (22.3)288 (24.1)312 (25.5)374 (30.7)<0.001
Long-term TyG index
 LVMI, g/m276.26 ± 19.0678.00 ± 20.9981.63 ± 21.4983.11 ± 21.14<0.001
 RWT, cm0.42 ± 0.080.42 ± 0.070.43 ± 0.070.43 ± 0.070.002
 LVM/LVEDV, %1.78 ± 0.471.82 ± 0.471.91 ± 0.501.98 ± 0.56<0.001
 LVEF, %65.55 ± 6.3465.09 ± 6.9164.92 ± 6.9465.14 ± 6.710.130
 GLS, %−18.16 ± 2.47−18.11 ± 2.66−17.77 ± 2.59−17.63 ± 2.56<0.001
 CS, %−27.89 ± 3.70−28.01 ± 3.89−27.72 ± 3.81−27.67 ± 4.070.214
E/A ratio, %0.90 ± 0.310.89 ± 0.310.84 ± 0.270.84 ± 0.29<0.001
E/e′ ratio, %10.75 ± 3.8011.28 ± 4.1611.34 ± 3.8511.98 ± 4.76<0.001
 LV hypertension100 (8.2)124 (10.1)151 (12.4)162 (13.3)<0.001
 LV systolic dysfunction28 (2.3)42 (3.5)43 (3.6)25 (2.1)0.053
 LV diastolic dysfunction255 (20.9)312 (25.5)309 (25.3)377 (30.9)<0.001
Quartile 1Quartile 2Quartile 3Quartile 4P value
Baseline triglyceride-glucose index
 LVMI, g/m276.65 ± 19.8777.50 ± 19.8481.35 ± 21.2083.55 ± 21.76<0.001
 RWT, cm0.42 ± 0.080.42 ± 0.070.43 ± 0.070.43 ± 0.080.014
 LVM/LVEDV, %1.80 ± 0.451.85 ± 0.491.90 ± 0.521.94 ± 0.55<0.001
 LVEF, %65.66 ± 6.4965.36 ± 6.3164.66 ± 7.0565.01 ± 7.000.002
 GLS, %−18.16 ± 2.53−18.03 ± 2.59−17.87 ± 2.62−17.61 ± 2.56<0.001
 CS, %−27.87 ± 3.78−27.96 ± 3.71−27.88 ± 3.86−27.58 ± 4.120.191
E/A ratio, %0.89 ± 0.300.87 ± 0.300.85 ± 0.290.84 ± 0.30<0.001
E/e′ ratio, %10.89 ± 3.6311.12 ± 4.1111.40 ± 4.1811.95 ± 4.68<0.001
 LV hypertension107 (8.6)116 (9.7)160 (13.1)154 (12.6)<0.001
 LV systolic dysfunction26 (2.1)27 (2.3)51 (4.3)34 (2.9)0.006
 LV diastolic dysfunction279 (22.3)288 (24.1)312 (25.5)374 (30.7)<0.001
Long-term TyG index
 LVMI, g/m276.26 ± 19.0678.00 ± 20.9981.63 ± 21.4983.11 ± 21.14<0.001
 RWT, cm0.42 ± 0.080.42 ± 0.070.43 ± 0.070.43 ± 0.070.002
 LVM/LVEDV, %1.78 ± 0.471.82 ± 0.471.91 ± 0.501.98 ± 0.56<0.001
 LVEF, %65.55 ± 6.3465.09 ± 6.9164.92 ± 6.9465.14 ± 6.710.130
 GLS, %−18.16 ± 2.47−18.11 ± 2.66−17.77 ± 2.59−17.63 ± 2.56<0.001
 CS, %−27.89 ± 3.70−28.01 ± 3.89−27.72 ± 3.81−27.67 ± 4.070.214
E/A ratio, %0.90 ± 0.310.89 ± 0.310.84 ± 0.270.84 ± 0.29<0.001
E/e′ ratio, %10.75 ± 3.8011.28 ± 4.1611.34 ± 3.8511.98 ± 4.76<0.001
 LV hypertension100 (8.2)124 (10.1)151 (12.4)162 (13.3)<0.001
 LV systolic dysfunction28 (2.3)42 (3.5)43 (3.6)25 (2.1)0.053
 LV diastolic dysfunction255 (20.9)312 (25.5)309 (25.3)377 (30.9)<0.001

LV, left ventricular; LVMI, left ventricular mass index; RWT, relative wall thickness; LVM, left ventricular mass; LVEDV, left ventricular end-diastolic volume; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; GLS, global longitudinal strain; CS, circumferential strain.

Table 4

Association between the triglyceride–glucose index and left ventricular structure and function

Triglyceride–glucose indexModel 1Model 2Model 3
β (SE)P valueβ (SE)P valueβ (SE)P value
LV structure
 LVMI (g/m2, n = 4842)
  Baseline triglyceride–glucose3.520 (0.542)<0.0011.381 (0.587)0.0190.462 (0.589)0.433
  Long-term triglyceride–glucose4.656 (0.631)<0.0012.254 (0.683)0.0011.319 (0.684)0.040
 RWT (cm, n = 4849)
  Baseline TyG0.008 (0.002)<0.0010.006 (0.002)0.0050.005 (0.002)0.027
  Long-term TyG0.011 (0.002)<0.0010.009 (0.003)0.0010.008 (0.003)0.003
 LVM/LVEDV ratio (%, n = 4710)
  Baseline TyG0.127 (0.013)<0.0010.096 (0.015)<0.0010.134 (0.017)<0.001
  Long-term TyG0.183 (0.016)<0.0010.150 (0.017)<0.0010.133 (0.017)<0.001
LV systolic function
 LVEF (%, n = 4742)
  Baseline TyG0.076 (0.178)0.6690.404 (0.196)0.0390.457 (0.198)0.021
  Long-term TyG0.005 (0.207)0.9790.359 (0.227)0.1140.411 (0.229)0.043
 GLS (%, n = 4570)
  Baseline TyG0.265 (0.070)<0.0010.159 (0.076)0.0380.097 (0.077)0.209
  Long-term TyG0.464 (0.081)<0.0010.376 (0.088)<0.0010.315 (0.089)<0.001
 CS (%, n = 3595)
  Baseline TyG0.007 (0.119)0.953−0.199 (0.130)0.125−0.174 (0.132)0.187
  Long-term TyG0.183 (0.139)0.189−0.023 (0.152)0.878−0.010 (0.154)0.949
LV diastolic function
E/A ratio (%, n = 4660)
  Baseline TyG−0.036 (0.008)<0.001−0.030 (0.009)0.001−0.029 (0.009)0.001
  Long-term TyG−0.056 (0.009)<0.001−0.053 (0.010)<0.001−0.052 (0.010)<0.001
E/e′ ratio (%, n = 4889)
  Baseline TyG0.950 (0.108)<0.0010.660 (0.118)<0.0010.510 (0.119)<0.001
  Long-term TyG1.064 (0.126)<0.0010.709 (0.138)<0.0010.553 (0.138)<0.001
Triglyceride–glucose indexModel 1Model 2Model 3
β (SE)P valueβ (SE)P valueβ (SE)P value
LV structure
 LVMI (g/m2, n = 4842)
  Baseline triglyceride–glucose3.520 (0.542)<0.0011.381 (0.587)0.0190.462 (0.589)0.433
  Long-term triglyceride–glucose4.656 (0.631)<0.0012.254 (0.683)0.0011.319 (0.684)0.040
 RWT (cm, n = 4849)
  Baseline TyG0.008 (0.002)<0.0010.006 (0.002)0.0050.005 (0.002)0.027
  Long-term TyG0.011 (0.002)<0.0010.009 (0.003)0.0010.008 (0.003)0.003
 LVM/LVEDV ratio (%, n = 4710)
  Baseline TyG0.127 (0.013)<0.0010.096 (0.015)<0.0010.134 (0.017)<0.001
  Long-term TyG0.183 (0.016)<0.0010.150 (0.017)<0.0010.133 (0.017)<0.001
LV systolic function
 LVEF (%, n = 4742)
  Baseline TyG0.076 (0.178)0.6690.404 (0.196)0.0390.457 (0.198)0.021
  Long-term TyG0.005 (0.207)0.9790.359 (0.227)0.1140.411 (0.229)0.043
 GLS (%, n = 4570)
  Baseline TyG0.265 (0.070)<0.0010.159 (0.076)0.0380.097 (0.077)0.209
  Long-term TyG0.464 (0.081)<0.0010.376 (0.088)<0.0010.315 (0.089)<0.001
 CS (%, n = 3595)
  Baseline TyG0.007 (0.119)0.953−0.199 (0.130)0.125−0.174 (0.132)0.187
  Long-term TyG0.183 (0.139)0.189−0.023 (0.152)0.878−0.010 (0.154)0.949
LV diastolic function
E/A ratio (%, n = 4660)
  Baseline TyG−0.036 (0.008)<0.001−0.030 (0.009)0.001−0.029 (0.009)0.001
  Long-term TyG−0.056 (0.009)<0.001−0.053 (0.010)<0.001−0.052 (0.010)<0.001
E/e′ ratio (%, n = 4889)
  Baseline TyG0.950 (0.108)<0.0010.660 (0.118)<0.0010.510 (0.119)<0.001
  Long-term TyG1.064 (0.126)<0.0010.709 (0.138)<0.0010.553 (0.138)<0.001

Model 1: Adjusted for baseline age, race, sex, smoking status, and drinking status.

Model 2: Adjusted for Model 1 plus body mass index, estimated glomerular filtration rate, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, diabetes, and lipid-lowering medication.

Model 3: Adjusted for Model 2 plus hypertension, systolic blood pressure, and anti-hypertensive medication.

LV, left ventricular; LVMI, left ventricular mass index; RWT, relative wall thickness; LVM, left ventricular mass; LVEDV, left ventricular end-diastolic volume; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; GLS, global longitudinal strain; CS, circumferential strain.

Table 4

Association between the triglyceride–glucose index and left ventricular structure and function

Triglyceride–glucose indexModel 1Model 2Model 3
β (SE)P valueβ (SE)P valueβ (SE)P value
LV structure
 LVMI (g/m2, n = 4842)
  Baseline triglyceride–glucose3.520 (0.542)<0.0011.381 (0.587)0.0190.462 (0.589)0.433
  Long-term triglyceride–glucose4.656 (0.631)<0.0012.254 (0.683)0.0011.319 (0.684)0.040
 RWT (cm, n = 4849)
  Baseline TyG0.008 (0.002)<0.0010.006 (0.002)0.0050.005 (0.002)0.027
  Long-term TyG0.011 (0.002)<0.0010.009 (0.003)0.0010.008 (0.003)0.003
 LVM/LVEDV ratio (%, n = 4710)
  Baseline TyG0.127 (0.013)<0.0010.096 (0.015)<0.0010.134 (0.017)<0.001
  Long-term TyG0.183 (0.016)<0.0010.150 (0.017)<0.0010.133 (0.017)<0.001
LV systolic function
 LVEF (%, n = 4742)
  Baseline TyG0.076 (0.178)0.6690.404 (0.196)0.0390.457 (0.198)0.021
  Long-term TyG0.005 (0.207)0.9790.359 (0.227)0.1140.411 (0.229)0.043
 GLS (%, n = 4570)
  Baseline TyG0.265 (0.070)<0.0010.159 (0.076)0.0380.097 (0.077)0.209
  Long-term TyG0.464 (0.081)<0.0010.376 (0.088)<0.0010.315 (0.089)<0.001
 CS (%, n = 3595)
  Baseline TyG0.007 (0.119)0.953−0.199 (0.130)0.125−0.174 (0.132)0.187
  Long-term TyG0.183 (0.139)0.189−0.023 (0.152)0.878−0.010 (0.154)0.949
LV diastolic function
E/A ratio (%, n = 4660)
  Baseline TyG−0.036 (0.008)<0.001−0.030 (0.009)0.001−0.029 (0.009)0.001
  Long-term TyG−0.056 (0.009)<0.001−0.053 (0.010)<0.001−0.052 (0.010)<0.001
E/e′ ratio (%, n = 4889)
  Baseline TyG0.950 (0.108)<0.0010.660 (0.118)<0.0010.510 (0.119)<0.001
  Long-term TyG1.064 (0.126)<0.0010.709 (0.138)<0.0010.553 (0.138)<0.001
Triglyceride–glucose indexModel 1Model 2Model 3
β (SE)P valueβ (SE)P valueβ (SE)P value
LV structure
 LVMI (g/m2, n = 4842)
  Baseline triglyceride–glucose3.520 (0.542)<0.0011.381 (0.587)0.0190.462 (0.589)0.433
  Long-term triglyceride–glucose4.656 (0.631)<0.0012.254 (0.683)0.0011.319 (0.684)0.040
 RWT (cm, n = 4849)
  Baseline TyG0.008 (0.002)<0.0010.006 (0.002)0.0050.005 (0.002)0.027
  Long-term TyG0.011 (0.002)<0.0010.009 (0.003)0.0010.008 (0.003)0.003
 LVM/LVEDV ratio (%, n = 4710)
  Baseline TyG0.127 (0.013)<0.0010.096 (0.015)<0.0010.134 (0.017)<0.001
  Long-term TyG0.183 (0.016)<0.0010.150 (0.017)<0.0010.133 (0.017)<0.001
LV systolic function
 LVEF (%, n = 4742)
  Baseline TyG0.076 (0.178)0.6690.404 (0.196)0.0390.457 (0.198)0.021
  Long-term TyG0.005 (0.207)0.9790.359 (0.227)0.1140.411 (0.229)0.043
 GLS (%, n = 4570)
  Baseline TyG0.265 (0.070)<0.0010.159 (0.076)0.0380.097 (0.077)0.209
  Long-term TyG0.464 (0.081)<0.0010.376 (0.088)<0.0010.315 (0.089)<0.001
 CS (%, n = 3595)
  Baseline TyG0.007 (0.119)0.953−0.199 (0.130)0.125−0.174 (0.132)0.187
  Long-term TyG0.183 (0.139)0.189−0.023 (0.152)0.878−0.010 (0.154)0.949
LV diastolic function
E/A ratio (%, n = 4660)
  Baseline TyG−0.036 (0.008)<0.001−0.030 (0.009)0.001−0.029 (0.009)0.001
  Long-term TyG−0.056 (0.009)<0.001−0.053 (0.010)<0.001−0.052 (0.010)<0.001
E/e′ ratio (%, n = 4889)
  Baseline TyG0.950 (0.108)<0.0010.660 (0.118)<0.0010.510 (0.119)<0.001
  Long-term TyG1.064 (0.126)<0.0010.709 (0.138)<0.0010.553 (0.138)<0.001

Model 1: Adjusted for baseline age, race, sex, smoking status, and drinking status.

Model 2: Adjusted for Model 1 plus body mass index, estimated glomerular filtration rate, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, diabetes, and lipid-lowering medication.

Model 3: Adjusted for Model 2 plus hypertension, systolic blood pressure, and anti-hypertensive medication.

LV, left ventricular; LVMI, left ventricular mass index; RWT, relative wall thickness; LVM, left ventricular mass; LVEDV, left ventricular end-diastolic volume; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; GLS, global longitudinal strain; CS, circumferential strain.

Discussion

In this large community-based cohort study, we found that the incidence of HF was higher in participants with a greater baseline and a long-term TyG index during a median follow-up of 22.5 years. Besides, we found that a greater TyG index was significantly related to adverse LV remodelling and impaired LV function. The results of our study for the first time showed that insulin resistance assessed by the TyG index was associated with the development of HF and impaired cardiac structure and function.

Several prior studies have evaluated the relationship between insulin resistance and incident HF. A prospective cohort performed in Sweden have found that insulin resistance, estimated by the hyperinsulinaemic-euglycaemic clamp technique, could predict HF independently of other risk factors.24 The hyperinsulinaemic-euglycaemic clamp technique is regarded as the gold standard for evaluating insulin sensitivity, but its invasive procedure and expansive cost have limited its use in daily clinical practice. Therefore, a variety of surrogates for insulin resistance have been proposed and compared with the hyperinsulinaemic-euglycaemic clamp technique. Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance, calculated by fasting glucose and insulin, is commonly used for evaluating insulin resistance.25 Several studies have examined the relationship between HOMA-IR and incident HF, but the results have varied in different researches. An analysis of the ARIC study found that the relationship between HOMA-IR and incident HF was non-linear, which was no longer significant at HOMA-IR values >2.5.2 In several other studies, no significant association between HOMA-IR and incident HF was observed.24,26 These studies indicated that HOMA-IR might not be applicable to show the effect of insulin resistance in the development of HF. Recently, the TyG index has been proved to be well related to the hyperinsulinaemic-euglycaemic clamp test and HOMA-IR8–10 and could be used as a convenient, cost-effective, and reliable surrogate of insulin resistance. Former studies found that an elevated level of the TyG index was significantly associated with a higher risk of CVD.14,15,27 However, data about the association between the TyG index and the development of HF is still lacking, and whether the TyG index is related to altered LV structure and function is unknown. We tried to figure out the effect of insulin resistance assessed by the TyG index on the development of incident HF and impaired LV structure and function, making it convenient for clinicians to identify patients at high risk of HF.

In the present study, we found that insulin resistance assessed by the TyG index was independently associated with the risk of HF, highlighting the potential utility of using the TyG index as a potential predictor for HF. Furthermore, taking the fluctuation of long-period exposure into account, we calculated the updated mean TyG index at multiple visits as the long-term TyG index, to provide relatively robust results. We further explored the relationship between the TyG index and LV structure and function among the participants with available echocardiographic data at ARIC Visit 5 (n = 4889). We found that, over a median follow-up of 22.5 years, both the baseline and the long-term TyG index were associated with adverse LV remodelling and impaired LV function, and long-standing exposure to a high level of the TyG index had an even stronger impact. Our findings were consistent with previous studies which found that higher insulin resistance was related to impaired cardiac structure and function even though LVEF was preserved.28

A number of mechanisms may explain the association between insulin resistance assessed by the TyG index and the development of HF. First, higher level of the TyG index reflects the status of insulin resistance that is related to metabolic imbalance, including hyperglycaemia and dyslipidaemia, which have a direct effect on cardiomyocyte hypertrophy,29 myocardial contractility,30 and cardiac stiffness.31 Second, insulin resistance facilitated the progression of chronic inflammation32 and endothelium dysfunction,33 promoted the formation of vulnerable plaque,34 and weakened the compensatory mechanisms of the myocardium, making it vulnerable to ischaemia and pressure overload.35 Third, insulin resistance was found to have an effect on cardiac structure and function, correlated with increased LV mass and adverse LV remodelling,36,37 which was consistent with the findings in our study. However, the mechanism underlying the association between the TyG index and the risk of HF has not been exactly understood. Further studies are required to figure out the implicated mechanism.

The findings of our study are of great clinical importance for preventing the development of HF among the general population. First, estimating insulin resistance by the TyG index, which has been validated against hyperinsulinaemic-euglycaemic clamp measures and HOMA-IR,8,9 only requires paired concentrations of fasting triglyceride and glucose. Our study found that higher levels of both single-point and the long-term TyG index were associated with an elevated risk of incident HF and worse LV structure and function. Thus, using the TyG index for risk stratification may facilitate targeting those at high risk of HF, highlighting the utility and relatively low cost of using the TyG index as an indicator of incident HF in clinical practice. Second, our study demonstrated that the higher the TyG index is, the higher is the likelihood of incident HF, both in diabetic and non-diabetic participants. This indicated that insulin resistance assessed by the TyG index could be considered for routine use no matter what the diabetic status is. Third, insulin resistance is not irreversible and considered as the early-stage in the development of diabetes.38 Some therapeutic interventions have been proven to improve the prognosis and reduce cardiac remodelling or dysfunction even for those without diabetes. The Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke trial found that pioglitazone, an insulin-sensitizing agent, could reduce the risk for myocardial infarction and stroke in patients with insulin resistance but without diabetes.39 Metformin treatment was also found to significantly reduce LVH in patients without diabetes who had insulin resistance or pre-diabetes.40 Another study showed that SGLT2 inhibitors may improve the abnormal energy metabolism caused by insulin resistance, along with the improvement of cardiac remodelling.41 Therefore, using the TyG index to identify insulin resistance may allow early identify of high risk individuals who could benefit from specific interventions for preventing incident HF.

There exists several limitations in this study. First, due to the observational nature of the ARIC trial, the results of our study could not establish a causal association between the TyG index and the incident HF. We have adjusted for a variety of potential risk factors in Cox regression model, including demography, lifestyle, comorbidities, medications, BMI, blood pressure, and renal function, but residual confounders may still remain of concern. Second, the types of incident HF were not recorded, and therefore we cannot examine the association between the TyG index and different types of HF, such as HF with reduced, mildly reduced, or preserved ejection fraction. Third, since a middle-age (45–64 years old) community and only white and black race were recruited in the ARIC study, additional research studies are required in younger participants, older adults, and other ethnicities. Fourth, although the TyG index has been demonstrated to have a great correlation with the gold standard of the hyperinsulinaemic-euglycaemic clamp test and considered as a reliable indicator of insulin resistance in previous studies, we were unable to evaluate the correlation between the TyG index and the hyperinsulinaemic-euglycaemic clamp test, which was not performed among participants in the ARIC study.

In conclusion, the results of our study showed that elevated levels of both the baseline and the long-term TyG index were significantly associated with adverse LV remodelling and LV dysfunction, as well as an increased risk of incident HF. Further research is warranted to evaluate the role of insulin resistance assessed by the TyG index in the development of HF.

Authors’ contributions

X.L., X.Z., and R.H. contributed to the conception or design of the work. X.L., X.Z., R.H., Y.L., X.Y., X.Z., P.X., and M.L. were responsible for the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data. R.H., Y.L., and X.Y. drafted the manuscript. A critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content was performed by all authors. All authors agreed with the content of the article to be submitted.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material is available at the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.

Acknowledgements

We thank the staff and participants of the ARIC study for their contributions.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [81600206 to Z.X.D. and 81870195 to L.X.X.] and Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [2016A030310140 to Z.X.D.; 2016A020220007 and 2019A1515011582 to L.X.X.]. The supporting organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Data Availability

Data from the ARIC study are available to all researchers upon application. No additional data are available.

References

1

Metra
M
,
Teerlink
JR
.
Heart failure
.
Lancet
2017
;
390
:
1981
1995
.

2

Vardeny
O
,
Gupta
DK
,
Claggett
B
,
Burke
S
,
Shah
A
,
Loehr
L
,
Rasmussen-Torvik
L
,
Selvin
E
,
Chang
PP
,
Aguilar
D
,
Solomon
SD
.
Insulin resistance and incident heart failure the ARIC study (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities)
.
JACC Heart Fail
2013
;
1
:
531
536
.

3

Banerjee
D
,
Biggs
ML
,
Mercer
L
,
Mukamal
K
,
Kaplan
R
,
Barzilay
J
,
Kuller
L
,
Kizer
JR
,
Djousse
L
,
Tracy
R
,
Zieman
S
,
Lloyd-Jones
D
,
Siscovick
D
,
Carnethon
M
.
Insulin resistance and risk of incident heart failure: cardiovascular health study
.
Circ Heart Fail
2013
;
6
:
364
370
.

4

Wamil
M
,
Coleman
RL
,
Adler
AI
,
McMurray
JJV
,
Holman
RR
.
Increased risk of incident heart failure and death is associated with insulin resistance in people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 89
.
Diabetes Care
2021
;
44
:
1877
1884
.

5

Kishi
S
,
Gidding
SS
,
Reis
JP
,
Colangelo
LA
,
Venkatesh
BA
,
Armstrong
AC
,
Isogawa
A
,
Lewis
CE
,
Wu
C
,
Jacobs
DR
,
Liu
K
,
Lima
JAC
.
Association of insulin resistance and glycemic metabolic abnormalities with LV structure and function in middle age: the CARDIA study
.
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging
2017
;
10
:
105
114
.

6

Yoneyama
K
,
Venkatesh
BA
,
Wu
CO
,
Mewton
N
,
Gjesdal
O
,
Kishi
S
,
McClelland
RL
,
Bluemke
DA
,
Lima
JAC
.
Diabetes mellitus and insulin resistance associate with left ventricular shape and torsion by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in asymptomatic individuals from the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis
.
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson
2018
;
20
:
53
.

7

Shulman
GI
,
Rothman
DL
,
Jue
T
,
Stein
P
,
DeFronzo
RA
,
Shulman
RG
.
Quantitation of muscle glycogen synthesis in normal subjects and subjects with non-insulin-dependent diabetes by 13C nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy
.
New Engl J Med
1990
;
322
:
223
228
.

8

Simental-Mendía
LE
,
Rodríguez-Morán
M
,
Guerrero-Romero
F
.
The product of fasting glucose and triglycerides as surrogate for identifying insulin resistance in apparently healthy subjects
.
Metab Syndr Relat Disord
2008
;
6
:
299
304
.

9

Guerrero-Romero
F
,
Simental-Mendía
LE
,
González-Ortiz
M
,
Martínez-Abundis
E
,
Ramos-Zavala
MG
,
Hernández-González
SO
,
Jacques-Camarena
O
,
Rodríguez-Morán
M
.
The product of triglycerides and glucose, a simple measure of insulin sensitivity. Comparison with the euglycemic-hyperinsulinemic clamp
.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
2010
;
95
:
3347
3351
.

10

Sánchez-García
A
,
Rodríguez-Gutiérrez
R
,
Mancillas-Adame
L
,
González-Nava
V
,
Díaz González-Colmenero
A
,
Solis
RC
,
Álvarez-Villalobos
NA
,
González-González
JG
.
Diagnostic accuracy of the triglyceride and glucose index for insulin resistance: a systematic review
.
Int J Endocrinol
2020
;
2020
:
4678526
.

11

Lee
SB
,
Ahn
CW
,
Lee
BK
,
Kang
S
,
Nam
JS
,
You
JH
,
Kim
MJ
,
Kim
MK
,
Park
JS
.
Association between triglyceride glucose index and arterial stiffness in Korean adults
.
Cardiovasc Diabetol
2018
;
17
:
41
.

12

Li
M
,
Zhan
A
,
Huang
X
,
Hu
L
,
Zhou
W
,
Wang
T
,
Zhu
L
,
Bao
H
,
Cheng
X
.
Positive association between triglyceride glucose index and arterial stiffness in hypertensive patients: the China H-type hypertension registry study
.
Cardiovasc Diabetol
2020
;
19
:
139
.

13

Zhang
M
,
Wang
B
,
Liu
Y
,
Sun
X
,
Luo
X
,
Wang
C
,
Li
L
,
Zhang
L
,
Ren
Y
,
Zhao
Y
,
Zhou
J
,
Han
C
,
Zhao
J
,
Hu
D
.
Cumulative increased risk of incident type 2 diabetes mellitus with increasing triglyceride glucose index in normal-weight people: the rural Chinese cohort study
.
Cardiovasc Diabetol
2017
;
16
:
30
.

14

Ding
X
,
Wang
X
,
Wu
J
,
Zhang
M
,
Cui
M
.
Triglyceride-glucose index and the incidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases: a meta-analysis of cohort studies
.
Cardiovasc Diabetol
2021
;
20
:
76
.

15

Park
K
,
Ahn
CW
,
Lee
SB
,
Kang
S
,
Nam
JS
,
Lee
BK
,
Kim
JH
,
Park
JS
.
Elevated TyG index predicts progression of coronary artery calcification
.
Diabetes Care
2019
;
42
:
1569
1573
.

16

Barzegar
N
,
Tohidi
M
,
Hasheminia
M
,
Azizi
F
,
Hadaegh
F
.
The impact of triglyceride-glucose index on incident cardiovascular events during 16 years of follow-up: tehran lipid and glucose study
.
Cardiovasc Diabetol
2020
;
19
:
155
.

17

The ARIC Investigators. The atherosclerosis risk in communities (ARIC) study: design and objectives
.
Am J Epidemiol
1989
;
129
:
687
702
.

18

Friedewald
WT
,
Levy
RI
,
Fredrickson
DS
.
Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge
.
Clin Chem
1972
;
18
:
499
502
.

19

Levey
AS
,
Stevens
LA
,
Schmid
CH
,
Zhang
YL
,
Castro
AF
,
Feldman
HI
,
Kusek
JW
,
Eggers
P
,
Van Lente
F
,
Greene
T
,
Coresh
J
.
A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate
.
Ann Intern Med
2009
;
150
:
604
612
.

20

Jin
C
,
Li
G
,
Rexrode
KM
,
Gurol
ME
,
Yuan
X
,
Hui
Y
,
Ruan
C
,
Vaidya
A
,
Wang
Y
,
Wu
S
,
Gao
X
.
Prospective study of fasting blood glucose and intracerebral hemorrhagic risk
.
Stroke
2018
;
49
:
27
33
.

21

Shah
AM
,
Cheng
S
,
Skali
H
,
Wu
J
,
Mangion
JR
,
Kitzman
D
,
Matsushita
K
,
Konety
S
,
Butler
KR
,
Fox
ER
,
Cook
N
,
Ni
H
,
Coresh
J
,
Mosley
TH
,
Heiss
G
,
Folsom
AR
,
Solomon
SD
.
Rationale and design of a multileft echocardiographic study to assess the relationship between cardiac structure and function and heart failure risk in a biracial cohort of community-dwelling elderly persons: the atherosclerosis risk in communities study
.
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging
2014
;
7
:
173
181
.

22

Lang
RM
,
Bierig
M
,
Devereux
RB
,
Flachskampf
FA
,
Foster
E
,
Pellikka
PA
,
Picard
MH
,
Roman
MJ
,
Seward
J
,
Shanewise
JS
,
Solomon
SD
,
Spencer
KT
,
St John Sutton
M
,
Stewart
WJ
.
Recommendations for chamber quantification: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography’s Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Chamber Quantification Writing Group, developed in conjunction with the European Association of Echocardiography, a branch of the European Society of Cardiology
.
J Am Soc Echocardiogr
2005
;
18
:
1440
1463
.

23

Nagueh
SF
,
Appleton
CP
,
Gillebert
TC
,
Marino
PN
,
Oh
JK
,
Smiseth
OA
,
Waggoner
AD
,
Flachskampf
FA
,
Pellikka
PA
,
Evangelista
A
.
Recommendations for the evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function by echocardiography
.
J Am Soc Echocardiogr
2009
;
22
:
107
133
.

24

Ingelsson
E
,
Sundström
J
,
Arnlöv
J
,
Zethelius
B
,
Lind
L
.
Insulin resistance and risk of congestive heart failure
.
JAMA
2005
;
294
:
334
341
.

25

Matthews
DR
,
Hosker
JP
,
Rudenski
AS
,
Naylor
BA
,
Treacher
DF
,
Turner
RC
.
Homeostasis model assessment: insulin resistance and beta-cell function from fasting plasma glucose and insulin concentrations in man
.
Diabetologia
1985
;
28
:
412
419
.

26

Kalogeropoulos
A
,
Georgiopoulou
V
,
Harris
TB
,
Kritchevsky
SB
,
Bauer
DC
,
Smith
AL
,
Strotmeyer
E
,
Newman
AB
,
Wilson
PWF
,
Psaty
BM
,
Butler
J
.
Glycemic status and incident heart failure in elderly without history of diabetes mellitus: the health, aging, and body composition study
.
J Card Fail
2009
;
15
:
593
599
.

27

Wang
A
,
Wang
G
,
Liu
Q
,
Zuo
Y
,
Chen
S
,
Tao
B
,
Tian
X
,
Wang
P
,
Meng
X
,
Wu
S
,
Wang
Y
,
Wang
Y
.
Triglyceride-glucose index and the risk of stroke and its subtypes in the general population: an 11-year follow-up
.
Cardiovasc Diabetol
2021
;
20
:
46
.

28

Kishi
S
,
Armstrong
AC
,
Gidding
SS
,
Colangelo
LA
,
Venkatesh
BA
,
Jacobs
DR
,
Carr
JJ
,
Terry
JG
,
Liu
K
,
Goff
DC
,
Lima
JAC
.
Association of obesity in early adulthood and middle age with incipient left ventricular dysfunction and structural remodeling: the CARDIA study (Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults)
.
JACC Heart Fail
2014
;
2
:
500
508
.

29

Horwich
TB
,
Fonarow
GC
.
Glucose, obesity, metabolic syndrome, and diabetes relevance to incidence of heart failure
.
J Am Coll Cardiol
2010
;
55
:
283
293
.

30

Boudina
S
,
Abel
ED
.
Diabetic cardiomyopathy revisited
.
Circulation
2007
;
115
:
3213
3223
.

31

Mewton
N
,
Liu
CY
,
Croisille
P
,
Bluemke
D
,
Lima
JA
.
Assessment of myocardial fibrosis with cardiovascular magnetic resonance
.
J Am Coll Cardiol
2011
;
57
:
891
903
.

32

Bloomgarden
ZT
.
Inflammation and insulin resistance
.
Diabetes Care
2003
;
26
:
1619
1623
.

33

Janus
A
,
Szahidewicz-Krupska
E
,
Mazur
G
,
Doroszko
A
.
Insulin resistance and endothelial dysfunction constitute a common therapeutic target in cardiometabolic disorders
.
Mediators Inflamm
2016
;
2016
:
3634948
.

34

Iguchi
T
,
Hasegawa
T
,
Otsuka
K
,
Matsumoto
K.
,
Yamazaki
T.
,
Nishimura
S.
,
Nakata
S.
,
Ehara
S.
,
Kataoka
T.
,
Shimada
K.
,
Yoshiyama
M
.
Insulin resistance is associated with coronary plaque vulnerability: insight from optical coherence tomography analysis
.
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging
2014
;
15
:
284
291
.

35

Witteles
RM
,
Fowler
MB
.
Insulin-resistant cardiomyopathy clinical evidence, mechanisms, and treatment options
.
J Am Coll Cardiol
2008
;
51
:
93
102
.

36

Velagaleti
RS
,
Gona
P
,
Chuang
ML
,
Salton
CJ
,
Fox
CS
,
Blease
SJ
,
Yeon
SB
,
Manning
WJ
,
O’Donnell
CJ
.
Relations of insulin resistance and glycemic abnormalities to cardiovascular magnetic resonance measures of cardiac structure and function: the framingham heart study
.
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging
2010
;
3
:
257
263
.

37

Sundström
J
,
Lind
L
,
Nyström
N
,
Zethelius
B
,
Andrén
Bl
,
Hales
CN
,
Lithell
HO
.
Left ventricular concentric remodeling rather than left ventricular hypertrophy is related to the insulin resistance syndrome in elderly men
.
Circulation
2000
;
101
:
2595
2600
.

38

Abdul-Ghani
MA
,
Tripathy
D
,
DeFronzo
RA
.
Contributions of beta-cell dysfunction and insulin resistance to the pathogenesis of impaired glucose tolerance and impaired fasting glucose
.
Diabetes Care
2006
;
29
:
1130
1139
.

39

Kernan
WN
,
Viscoli
CM
,
Furie
KL
,
Young
LH
,
Inzucchi
SE
,
Gorman
M
,
Guarino
PD
,
Lovejoy
AM
,
Peduzzi
PN
,
Conwit
R
,
Brass
LM
,
Schwartz
GG
,
Adams
HP
,
Berger
L
,
Carolei
A
,
Clark
W
,
Coull
B
,
Ford
GA
,
Kleindorfer
D
,
O’Leary
JR
,
Parsons
MW
,
Ringleb
P
,
Sen
S
,
Spence
JD
,
Tanne
D
,
Wang
D
,
Winder
TR
.
Pioglitazone after ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack
.
New Engl J Med
2016
;
374
:
1321
1331
.

40

Mohan
M
,
Al-Talabany
S
,
McKinnie
A
,
Mordi
IR
,
Singh
JSS
,
Gandy
SJ
,
Baig
F
,
Hussain
MS
,
Bhalraam
U
,
Khan
F
,
Choy
AM
,
Matthew
S
,
Houston
JG
,
Struthers
AD
,
George
J
,
Lang
CC
.
A randomized controlled trial of metformin on left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with coronary artery disease without diabetes: the MET-REMODEL trial
.
Eur Heart J
2019
;
40
:
3409
3417
.

41

Wang
X
,
Ni
J
,
Guo
R
,
Li
L
,
Su
J
,
He
F
,
Fan
G
.
SGLT2 inhibitors break the vicious circle between heart failure and insulin resistance: targeting energy metabolism
.
Heart Fail Rev
2022
;
27
:
961
980
.

Author notes

Rihua Huang, Yifen Lin and Xiaomin Ye Contributed to the manuscript equally.

Conflict of interest: none declared.

This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://dbpia.nl.go.kr/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)

Supplementary data

Comments

0 Comments
Submit a comment
You have entered an invalid code
Thank you for submitting a comment on this article. Your comment will be reviewed and published at the journal's discretion. Please check for further notifications by email.