4.7 Article

Myocardial Work in Middle-Aged Adults with Overweight and Obesity: Associations with Sex and Central Arterial Stiffness

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 17, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12175676

关键词

global myocardial work; arterial function; sex; obesity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the relation between global myocardial work index (GWI) and sex and increased body mass index (BMI). The results showed that women had higher GWI, which was mainly explained by increased left ventricular (LV) workload due to higher aortic augmentation pressure in women.
We explored global myocardial work index (GWI), a novel measure of myocardial function that integrates left ventricular (LV) hemodynamic load, in relation to sex and increased body mass index (BMI). We used data from 467 individuals (61% women, average age 47 +/- 9 years and BMI 31.2 kg/m(2)) without known cardiac disease. Central arterial function was analysed by applanation tonometry. GWI was calculated from global longitudinal strain (GLS) and post-echocardiography supine blood pressure (BP). Covariables of GWI were identified in linear regression analyses. Women had higher BMI, aortic augmentation pressure (12 +/- 7 vs. 8 +/- 6 mmHg), LV GLS (20.0 +/- 2.8 vs. 18.8 +/- 2.8%), and GWI (2126 +/- 385 vs. 2047 +/- 389 mmHg%) than men (all p < 0.05). In univariable analyses, higher GWI was associated with female sex, higher age, systolic BP, LV wall stress, LV ejection fraction, left atrial size, LV ejection time, and with lower waist circumference (all p < 0.05). In multivariable analysis, adjusting for these correlates, female sex remained independently associated with higher GWI (b = 0.13, p = 0.007). After additional adjustment for aortic augmentation pressure or central pulse pressure, this association became non-significant. In conclusion, the higher GWI in women compared to men was mainly explained by increased LV workload due to higher aortic augmentation pressure in women.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据