4.5 Article

Association of Epicardial, Visceral, and Subcutaneous Fat With Cardiometabolic Diseases

期刊

CIRCULATION JOURNAL
卷 82, 期 2, 页码 502-508

出版社

JAPANESE CIRCULATION SOC
DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-17-0820

关键词

Adiponectin; Atherosclerosis; Epicardial fat; Metabolic syndrome; Visceral fat

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [JP25461386, JP26293221]
  2. Takeda Science Foundation
  3. Japan Foundation for Applied Enzymology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Excess of visceral fat is a central factor in the pathogenesis of metabolic syndrome (MetS) and atherosclerosis. However, little is known about how much epicardial fat affects cardiometabolic disorders in comparison with visceral or subcutaneous fat. Methods and Results: Participants suspected as having angina pectoris underwent cardiac computed tomography (CT) imaging. Of them, 374 subjects were analyzed the association of clinical characteristics and CT-based fat distribution measured as epicardial fat volume (EFV), visceral fat area (VFA), and subcutaneous fat area (SFA). EFV was highly associated with VFA (R=0.58). Serum adiponectin was significantly decreased in high VFA subjects (VFA >= 100 cm(2)) and was also reduced in the high EFV group (EFV >= 80 cm(3)). Among the low VFA groups, the numbers of subjects with diabetes and coronary atherosclerosis were increased in high EFV group. Among the low EFV groups, the numbers of subjects with diabetes, hyperuricemia, and coronary atherosclerosis were increased among the high VFA subjects. In an age-, sex-, and body mass index (BMI)-adjusted model, EFV was associated with dyslipidemia and MetS, and VFA was significantly associated with hypertension, dyslipidemia, MetS, and coronary atherosclerosis, while SFA was not related with coronary risks and atherosclerosis. Conclusions: Epicardial fat accumulation may be a risk for coronary atherosclerosis in subjects without visceral fat accumulation. Visceral fat is the strongest risk for cardiometabolic diseases among the 3 types of fat depot.

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

4.5
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