Skip to main content

Table 4 PROCAM risk crude (and standardized for age differences in brackets) in relation to BMI and waist circumference.

From: Prevalence of obesity in primary care using different anthropometric measures – Results of the German Metabolic and Cardiovascular Risk Project (GEMCAS)

A. Male

≤ 94 cm

> 94 & ≤ 102 cm

> 102 cm

Total

< 25 kg/m2

3.61 (3.78) [n = 1,800; 23.41%]

5.84 (4.91) [n = 296; 3.85%]

6.77 (4.63*) [n = 30; 0.39%]

3.97 (4.0) [n = 2,126; 27.65%]

≥ 25& < 30 kg/m2

4.56 (4.64) [n = 1,026; 13.34%]

6.49 (5.49) [n = 1,564; 20.34%]

7.68 (5.83) [n = 974; 12.67%]

6.26 (5.35) [n = 3,564; 46.35%]

≥ 30 kg/m2

6.15 (5.9*) [n = 28; 0.36%]

6.07 (5.96) [n = 230; 2.99%]

7.35 (6.18) [n = 1,742; 22.65%]

7.19 (6.16) [n = 2,000; 26.01%]

Total

3.98 (4.12) [n = 2,854; 37.11%]

6.35 (5.47) [n = 2,090; 27.18%)

7.46 (6.05) [n = 2,746; 35.71%)

5.87 (5.22) [7,690; 100.00%]

B. Female

≤ 80 cm

> 80 & ≤ 88 cm

> 88 cm

Total

< 25 kg/m2

0.94 (1.08) [n = 2,438; 27.50%]

1.35 (1.35) [n = 889; 10.03%]

1.63 (1.62) [n = 223; 2.52%]

1.09 (1.19) [n = 3,550; 40.05%]

≥ 25& < 30 kg/m2

1.15 (1.23) [n = 360; 4.06%]

1.43 (1.46) [n = 1,008; 11.37%]

1.85 (1.75) [n = 1,566; 17.66%]

1.62 (1.59) [n = 2,934; 33.10%]

≥ 30 kg/m2

1.37 (1.29*) [n = 13; 0.15%]

1.53 (1.5) [n = 96; 1.08%]

1.86 (1.82) [n = 2,272; 25.63%]

1.85 (1.81) [n = 2,381; 26.86%]

Total

0.97 (1.1) [n = 2,811; 31.71%]

1.40 (1.41) [n = 1,993; 22.48%]

1.85 (1.78) [n = 4,061; 45.81%]

1.47 (1.5) [8865; 100.00%]

  1. [number of patients per patient group with non-missing PROCAM; proportion of all patients with non-missing PROCAM].
  2. PROCAM risk in relation to BMI and waist circumference [12]. N means number of patients with non-missing PROCAM in each cell; % of inner 9 cells adds up to 100%; the figure displayed is the risk for cardiovascular events for the next 10 years calculated with the PROCAM score (standardized for age). Crude/age-standardized mean are reported. * means that the total N in this cell is 30 or below and therefore the direct age standardization may have led to unreliable results.