OBJECTIVE: Visceral adiposity and hepatic steatosis may correlate with the metabolic syndrome but are not currently among the diagnostic criteria. We evaluated these features at unenhanced MDCT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Semiautomated measurements of subcutaneous fat area, visceral fat area, and visceral fat percentage were obtained at the umbilical level at unenhanced MDCT of 474 adults (217 men, 257 women; mean age, 58.3 years) using a dedicated application (Fat Assessment Tool, EBW version 4.5). Unenhanced liver attenuation was also recorded. Metabolic syndrome was defined using the criteria proposed by the International Diabetes Federation in 2005. RESULTS: The prevalence of metabolic syndrome was 35.0% (76/217) among men and 35.8% (92/257) among women. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for visceral fat area was 0.830 (95% CI, 0.784-0.867) in men and 0.887 (0.848-0.918) in women (p = 0.162). The AUC for subcutaneous fat area was 0.865 (0.823-0.899) in men and 0.762 (0.711-0.806) in women (p = 0.024). The AUC for visceral fat percentage was 0.527 (0.472-0.581) in men and 0.820 (0.774-0.859) in women (p < 0.001). The AUC for liver attenuation was 0.706 (0.653-0.754). Thresholds of subcutaneous fat area greater than 204 cm(2) in men, visceral fat area greater than 70 cm(2) in women, and liver attenuation less than 50 HU yielded a sensitivity and specificity of 80.3% and 83.7%; 83.7% and 80.0%; and 22.0% and 96.7%, respectively. Visceral fat area was elevated in 55% of patients without metabolic syndrome (11/20) but with a documented cardiovascular event or complication and in 32.1% of patients with a body mass index of 30 kg/m(2) or less. CONCLUSION: Accumulation of visceral fat was the best predictor for metabolic syndrome in women. Unexpectedly, the percentage of visceral fat was a poor predictor for metabolic syndrome in men and subcutaneous fat area was best. Decreased liver attenuation was insensitive but was highly specific for metabolic syndrome. The implications of these sex-specific differences and the relationship of fat-based CT measures to cardiovascular risk warrant further investigation.
OBJECTIVE: Visceral adiposity and hepatic steatosis may correlate with the metabolic syndrome but are not currently among the diagnostic criteria. We evaluated these features at unenhanced MDCT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Semiautomated measurements of subcutaneous fat area, visceral fat area, and visceral fat percentage were obtained at the umbilical level at unenhanced MDCT of 474 adults (217 men, 257 women; mean age, 58.3 years) using a dedicated application (Fat Assessment Tool, EBW version 4.5). Unenhanced liver attenuation was also recorded. Metabolic syndrome was defined using the criteria proposed by the International Diabetes Federation in 2005. RESULTS: The prevalence of metabolic syndrome was 35.0% (76/217) among men and 35.8% (92/257) among women. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for visceral fat area was 0.830 (95% CI, 0.784-0.867) in men and 0.887 (0.848-0.918) in women (p = 0.162). The AUC for subcutaneous fat area was 0.865 (0.823-0.899) in men and 0.762 (0.711-0.806) in women (p = 0.024). The AUC for visceral fat percentage was 0.527 (0.472-0.581) in men and 0.820 (0.774-0.859) in women (p < 0.001). The AUC for liver attenuation was 0.706 (0.653-0.754). Thresholds of subcutaneous fat area greater than 204 cm(2) in men, visceral fat area greater than 70 cm(2) in women, and liver attenuation less than 50 HU yielded a sensitivity and specificity of 80.3% and 83.7%; 83.7% and 80.0%; and 22.0% and 96.7%, respectively. Visceral fat area was elevated in 55% of patients without metabolic syndrome (11/20) but with a documented cardiovascular event or complication and in 32.1% of patients with a body mass index of 30 kg/m(2) or less. CONCLUSION: Accumulation of visceral fat was the best predictor for metabolic syndrome in women. Unexpectedly, the percentage of visceral fat was a poor predictor for metabolic syndrome in men and subcutaneous fat area was best. Decreased liver attenuation was insensitive but was highly specific for metabolic syndrome. The implications of these sex-specific differences and the relationship of fat-based CT measures to cardiovascular risk warrant further investigation.
Authors: Benjamin A Kuritzkes; Emmanouil P Pappou; Ravi P Kiran; Onur Baser; Liqiong Fan; Xiaotao Guo; Binsheng Zhao; Stuart Bentley-Hibbert Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2018-04-15 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Se Woo Park; Hang Lak Lee; Yong Won Ju; Dae Won Jun; Oh Young Lee; Dong Soo Han; Byung Chul Yoon; Ho Soon Choi; Joon Soo Hahm Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-10-23 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Joshua F Baker; Sogol Mostoufi-Moab; Jin Long; Babette Zemel; Said Ibrahim; Elena Taratuta; Mary B Leonard Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2018-11-02 Impact factor: 4.794