Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 1 de 1
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging ; 16(1): 37-46, 2015 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25227267

ABSTRACT

AIMS: To investigate the association of pericardial, mediastinal, and intrathoracic fat volumes with the presence and severity of coronary artery disease (CAD), metabolic syndrome (MS), and cardiac risk factors (CRFs). METHODS AND RESULTS: Two hundred and sixteen consecutive patients who underwent cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging and had a coronary angiogram within 12 months of the CMR were studied. Fat volume was measured by drawing region of interest curves, from short-axis cine views from base to apex and from a four-chamber cine view. Pericardial fat, mediastinal fat, intrathoracic fat (addition of pericardial and mediastinal fat volumes), and fat ratio (pericardial fat/mediastinal fat) were analysed for their association with the presence and severity of CAD (determined based on the Duke CAD Jeopardy Score), MS, CRFs, and death or myocardial infarction on follow-up. Pericardial fat volume was significantly greater in patients with CAD when compared with those without CAD [38.3 ± 25.1 vs. 31.9 ± 21.4 cm(3) (P = 0.04)]. A correlation between the severity of CAD and fat volume was found for pericardial fat (ß = 1, P < 0.01), mediastinal fat (ß = 1, P = 0.03), intrathoracic fat (ß = 2, P = 0.01), and fat ratio (ß = 0.005, P = 0.01). These correlations persisted for all four thoracic fat measurements even after performing a stepwise linear regression analysis for relevant risk factors. Patients with MS had significantly greater mediastinal and intrathoracic fat volumes when compared with those without MS [126 ± 33.5 vs. 106 ± 30.1 cm(3) (P < 0.01) and 165 ± 54.9 vs. 140 ± 52 cm(3) (P < 0.01), respectively]. However, there was no significant difference in pericardial fat, mediastinal fat, intrathoracic fat, or fat ratio between patients with or without myocardial infarction during the follow-up [33.6 ± 22.1 vs. 35.7 ± 23.8 cm(3) (P = 0.67); 115 ± 26.2 vs. 114 ± 33.8 cm(3) (P = 0.84); 149 ± 44.7 vs. 150 ± 55.7 cm(3) (P = 0.95); and 0.27 ± 0.15 vs. 0.28 ± 0.14 (P = 0.70), respectively]. There was no significant difference in pericardial fat, mediastinal fat, intrathoracic fat, or fat ratio between patients who were alive compared with those who died during follow-up [36.6 ± 26.6 vs. 35.3 ± 23.2 cm(3) (P = 0.76); 114 ± 40.2 vs. 114 ± 31.4 cm(3) (P = 0.95); 150 ± 64.7 vs. 149 ± 52.5 cm(3) (P = 0.92); and 0.29 ± 0.15 vs. 0.28 ± 0.14 (P = 0.85), respectively]. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms an association between pericardial fat volume with the presence and severity of CAD. Furthermore, an association between mediastinal and intrathoracic fat volumes with MS was found.


Subject(s)
Adipose Tissue/pathology , Coronary Angiography/methods , Coronary Artery Disease/diagnostic imaging , Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cine/methods , Metabolic Syndrome/diagnosis , Adult , Age Distribution , Aged , Cohort Studies , Coronary Artery Disease/epidemiology , Coronary Artery Disease/physiopathology , Disease Progression , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Incidence , Linear Models , Male , Mediastinum/pathology , Metabolic Syndrome/epidemiology , Metabolic Syndrome/physiopathology , Middle Aged , Pericardium/pathology , Reference Values , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Severity of Illness Index , Sex Distribution , Thoracic Cavity/pathology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...