PURPOSE: Obesity, particularly visceral obesity, is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Therefore, cardiovascular risk should be determined by evaluating visceral fat tissue not only in obese individuals but also in non-obese individuals. We aimed to evaluate the comparison of visceral fat tissue measurement methods with computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred four participants, 19 to 58 years of age (21 males, 83 females) were enrolled in this study. Participants underwent anthropometric evaluation, bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), ultrasonography (US), and CT examinations on the same day. RESULTS: The mean body mass index (BMI) was 31.2 +/- 8.7 kg/m2 (73 individuals [70.2%] had BMI > or =30, and 31 individuals [29.8%] had BMI < 30). The non-obese group (BMI < 30) that showed the best correlation coefficient values were for visceral fat area (VFA) by BIA in all participants, males and women (r = 0.902, P < 0.001; r = 0.994, P < 0.001; r = 0.645, P = 0.01, respectively); in case of BMI > or =30 the best correlation coefficient values were for VFA by BIA (r = 0.774, P < 0.001) for all participants, and visceral fat thickness by US for males (r = 0.851, P < 0.001), and BMI (r = 0.786, P < 0.001) for females. Using multiple stepwise regression analysis, the methods best reflecting VFA by CT were as follows: In subjects with BMI < 25, BIA correlated best with CT measures of VFA; while in subjects with BMI > 30 waist-to-hip ratio showed the best correlation with CT measures of VFA. The method best reflecting VFA by CT was visceral thickness by US in males; and the method best reflecting VFA by CT in females was visceral thickness by US, BMI and waist circumference. CONCLUSION: Anthropometric measurements and visceral fat tissue measurement methods such as US and BIA exhibit differences with respect to compliance with CT results in visceral fat tissue measurements by gender and BMI levels.
PURPOSE: Obesity, particularly visceral obesity, is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Therefore, cardiovascular risk should be determined by evaluating visceral fat tissue not only in obese individuals but also in non-obese individuals. We aimed to evaluate the comparison of visceral fat tissue measurement methods with computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred four participants, 19 to 58 years of age (21 males, 83 females) were enrolled in this study. Participants underwent anthropometric evaluation, bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), ultrasonography (US), and CT examinations on the same day. RESULTS: The mean body mass index (BMI) was 31.2 +/- 8.7 kg/m2 (73 individuals [70.2%] had BMI > or =30, and 31 individuals [29.8%] had BMI < 30). The non-obese group (BMI < 30) that showed the best correlation coefficient values were for visceral fat area (VFA) by BIA in all participants, males and women (r = 0.902, P < 0.001; r = 0.994, P < 0.001; r = 0.645, P = 0.01, respectively); in case of BMI > or =30 the best correlation coefficient values were for VFA by BIA (r = 0.774, P < 0.001) for all participants, and visceral fat thickness by US for males (r = 0.851, P < 0.001), and BMI (r = 0.786, P < 0.001) for females. Using multiple stepwise regression analysis, the methods best reflecting VFA by CT were as follows: In subjects with BMI < 25, BIA correlated best with CT measures of VFA; while in subjects with BMI > 30 waist-to-hip ratio showed the best correlation with CT measures of VFA. The method best reflecting VFA by CT was visceral thickness by US in males; and the method best reflecting VFA by CT in females was visceral thickness by US, BMI and waist circumference. CONCLUSION: Anthropometric measurements and visceral fat tissue measurement methods such as US and BIA exhibit differences with respect to compliance with CT results in visceral fat tissue measurements by gender and BMI levels.
Authors: Michaela R Anderson; Nicholas A Kolaitis; Ying Gao; Jasleen Kukreja; John Greenland; Steven Hays; Paul Wolters; Jeff Golden; Joshua Diamond; Scott Palmer; Selim Arcasoy; Jayaram Udupa; Jason D Christie; David J Lederer; Jonathan P Singer Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2019-07-24 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Hironobu Sanada; Hirohide Yokokawa; Junichi Yatabe; Scott M Williams; Robin A Felder; Pedro A Jose; Seiichi Takenosita Journal: Environ Health Prev Med Date: 2014-09-24 Impact factor: 3.674
Authors: Kerri A Simo; Iain H McKillop; Matthew T McMillan; William A Ahrens; Amanda L Walters; Kyle J Thompson; Timothy S Kuwada; John B Martinie; David A Iannitti; Keith S Gersin; David Sindram Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 4.129