Comparison of different definitions of metabolic syndrome and their relationship with cardiovascular risk estimation

Introduction: Multiple definitions of metabolic syndrome (MS) are used in Peru, and there is currently no consensus on which definition should be used in clinical practice. Objectives: To compare cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimators, obtained using the ACC/AHA ASCVD Risk Calculator, and to assess their level of agreement with different definitions of MS in patients treated in Lima, Peru. Materials and methods: Analytical cross-sectional study. Medical records, collected through consecutive sampling, of 233 patients treated between October and December 2019 at the Hospital Nacional Hipólito Unanue, Lima, Peru, were reviewed. CVR risk was calculated using the online ACC/AHA ASCVD Risk Calculator, and the MS definitions of the WHO, NCEP-ATP III, IDF, AHA/NHLBI, JIS and ALAD were considered to compare CVD risk according to each definition. Agreement between the different MS definitions was calculated using the kappa coefficient based on the six levels of strength of agreement described by Landis and Koch. Results: The median CVD risk in patients with MS according to the definitions of the WHO, NCEP-ATP III, IDF, AHA/NHLBI, ALAD and JIS was 9.6 (3.9-20.35), 7.9 (3.1-18.6), 7.3 (3-16.5), 7.8 (3-17.6), 7.1 (2.9-16.5), and 7.1 (3.1-16.5), respectively. The prevalence of MS according to JIS, IDF, ALAD, AHA/NHLBI, NCEP-ATP III and WHO definitions was 81.97%, 80.26%, 74.68%, 67.81%, 65.67%, and 51.14%, respectively. Agreement between the JIS criteria and the IDF, ALAD, NCEP-ATP III, and AHA/NHLBI criteria was 0.944, 0.787, 0.592, and 0.567, respectively, but it was 0.286 between the JIS criteria and the WHO criteria. Conclusions: In Peru, there are differences between CVD risk estimates depending on the MS definition used and considered in the present study, which may have an impact on the intensity of the therapeutic and preventive interventions performed in these patients.