4.5 Article

Abdominal Muscles and Metabolic Syndrome According to Patient Sex: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study

Journal

HEALTHCARE
Volume 9, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare9091197

Keywords

metabolic syndrome; computed tomography; attenuation; abdominal muscle; sex characteristics

Funding

  1. Korea Health Information Service (KHIS) - Ministry of Health and Welfare, Korea

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found complex associations between abdominal muscle quality and quantity with metabolic syndrome, with some differences observed between genders.
Computed tomography (CT) is a reference method for measuring skeletal muscle mass, and the amount of fat in the skeletal muscle can be calculated based on CT attenuation. This study aimed to comprehensively investigate the effect of muscle quality and quantity on metabolic syndrome (MetS) according to sex. This retrospective cross-sectional study enrolled 8081 individuals aged >= 20 years who underwent self-referral abdominopelvic CT at our hospital. The total abdominal muscle area (TAMA), low-attenuation abdominal muscle area (LAMA), normal-attenuation abdominal muscle area (NAMA), and extramyocellular lipid area (EMCLA) were measured using cross-sectional CT data of the L3 lumbar vertebrae. The TAMA and NAMA showed negative correlations with risk factors for MetS and a positive correlation with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, whereas the LAMA and EMCLA showed an inverse trend in both the sexes (p < 0.001). After adjusting for various factors, a higher LAMA index and the ratio of LAMA to TAMA were associated with a higher prevalence of MetS. High TAMA indices were associated with a lower prevalence of MetS. Furthermore, muscle quality and quantity were associated with the prevalence of MetS in both males and females. However, the LAMA showed a stronger association with MetS in males than in females.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available