4.4 Article

Relation of Echocardiographic Epicardial Fat Thickness and Myocardial Fat

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 105, 期 12, 页码 1831-1835

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.01.368

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Epicardial and myocardial fats increase with degree of visceral adiposity and possibly contribute to obesity-associated cardiac changes. Echocardiographic epicardial fat thickness is a new and independent,marker of visceral adiposity. The aim of this study was to test whether echocardiographic epicardial fat is related to myocardial fat. Twenty consecutive Caucasian men (body mass index 30.5 +/- 2 kg/m(2), 42 +/- 7 years of age) underwent transthoracic echocardiography for epicardial fat thickness, morphologic and diastolic parameter measurements, hydrogen-1 magnetic resonance spectroscopy for myocardial fat quantification, and magnetic resonance imaging for epicardial fat volume estimation. Hydrogen-1 magnetic resonance spectroscopic myocardial fat content, magnetic resonance imaging of epicardial fat volume, and echocardiographic epicardial fat thickness range varied from 0.5% to 31%, 4.5 to 43 ml, and 3 to 15 mm, respectively. Myocardial fat content showed a statistically significant correlation with echocardiographic epicardial fat thickness (r = 0.79, p <0.01), waist circumference (r = 0.64, p <0.01), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (r = 0.54, p <0.01), plasma adiponectin levels (r = 0.49, p <0.01), and isovolumic relaxation time (r = 0.59, p <0.01). However, multivariate linear regression analysis showed epicardial fat thickness as the most significant independent correlate of myocardial fat (p <0.001). Although this study is purely correlative and no causative conclusions can be drawn, it can be postulated that increased echocardiographic epicardial fat accumulation could reflect myocardial fat in subjects with a wide range of adiposity. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. (Am J Cardiol 2010;105:1831-1835)

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

4.4
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