3.8 Article

Epicardial fat from echocardiography: A new method for visceral adipose tissue prediction

期刊

OBESITY RESEARCH
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 304-310

出版社

NORTH AMER ASSOC STUDY OBESITY
DOI: 10.1038/oby.2003.45

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To validate transthoracic echocardiography as an easy and reliable imaging method for visceral adipose tissue (VAT) prediction. VAT is recognized as an important indicator of high cardiovascular and metabolic risk. Several methods are applied to estimate VAT, with different results. Research Methods and Procedures: We selected 60 healthy subjects (29 women, 31 men, 49.5 +/- 16.2 years) with a wide range of body mass indexes. Each subject underwent transthoracic echocardiogram and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to measure epicardial fat thickness on the right ventricle. Measurements of epicardial adipose tissue thickness were obtained from the same echocardiographic and MRI views and points. MRI was also used to measure VAT cross-sectional areas at the level of L4 to L5. Anthropometric indexes were also measured. Results: Subjects with predominant visceral fat accumulation showed higher epicardial adipose tissue thickness than subjects with predominant peripheral fat distribution: 9.97 +/- 2.88 vs. 4.34 +/- 1.98 (P = 0.005) and 7.19 +/- 2.74 vs. 3.43 +/- 1.64 (p = 0.004) in men and women, respectively. Simple linear regression analysis showed an excellent correlation between epicardial adipose tissue and waist circumference (r = 0.895, p = 0.01) and MRI abdominal VAT (r = 0.864, p = 0.01). Multiple regression analysis showed that epicardial adipose tissue thickness (r(2) = 0.442, p = 0.02) was the strongest independent variable correlated to MRI VAT. Bland test confirmed the good agreement between the two methods. Discussion: Epicardial adipose tissue showed a strong correlation with anthropometric and imaging measurements of VAT. Hence, transthoracic echocardiography could be an easy and reliable imaging method for VAT prediction.

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

3.8
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