James V Spearman1, Matthias Renker1,2, U Joseph Schoepf3,4, Aleksander W Krazinski1, Teri L Herbert5, Carlo N De Cecco1,6, Paul J Nietert7, Felix G Meinel1,8. 1. Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Ashley River Tower, MSC 226, 25 Courtenay Drive, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA. 2. Department of Internal Medicine I, Cardiology/Angiology, Giessen University, Giessen, Germany. 3. Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Ashley River Tower, MSC 226, 25 Courtenay Drive, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA. schoepf@musc.edu. 4. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. schoepf@musc.edu. 5. Department of Library Science and Informatics, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. 6. Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, University of Rome 'Sapienza' - Polo Pontino, Latina, Italy. 7. Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. 8. Institute for Clinical Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Hospital, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review of the growing body of literature evaluating the prognostic value of epicardial fat volume (EFV) quantified by cross-sectional imaging. METHODS: Two independent reviewers performed systematic searches on both PubMed and Scopus using search terms developed with a medical librarian. Peer-reviewed articles were selected based on the inclusion of outcome data, utilization of epicardial fat volume and sufficient reporting for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 411 studies were evaluated with nine studies meeting the inclusion criteria. In all, the studies evaluated 10,252 patients. All nine studies were based on CT measurements. Seven studies evaluated the prognostic value of EFV unadjusted for calcium score, and six of these studies found a significant association between EFV and clinical outcomes. Seven studies evaluated the incremental value of EFV beyond calcium scoring, and six of these studies found a significant association. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of studies suggest that EFV quantification is significantly associated with clinical outcomes and provides incremental prognostic value over coronary artery calcium scoring. Future research should use a binary cutoff of 125 mL for evaluation of EFV to provide consistency with other research. KEY POINTS: • Epicardial fat volume (EFV) has prognostic value for adverse cardiac events • Establishment of standardized quantitative categories for EFV is needed • Quantification of EFV could improve risk assessment with calcium scoring.
OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review of the growing body of literature evaluating the prognostic value of epicardial fat volume (EFV) quantified by cross-sectional imaging. METHODS: Two independent reviewers performed systematic searches on both PubMed and Scopus using search terms developed with a medical librarian. Peer-reviewed articles were selected based on the inclusion of outcome data, utilization of epicardial fat volume and sufficient reporting for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 411 studies were evaluated with nine studies meeting the inclusion criteria. In all, the studies evaluated 10,252 patients. All nine studies were based on CT measurements. Seven studies evaluated the prognostic value of EFV unadjusted for calcium score, and six of these studies found a significant association between EFV and clinical outcomes. Seven studies evaluated the incremental value of EFV beyond calcium scoring, and six of these studies found a significant association. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of studies suggest that EFV quantification is significantly associated with clinical outcomes and provides incremental prognostic value over coronary artery calcium scoring. Future research should use a binary cutoff of 125 mL for evaluation of EFV to provide consistency with other research. KEY POINTS: • Epicardial fat volume (EFV) has prognostic value for adverse cardiac events • Establishment of standardized quantitative categories for EFV is needed • Quantification of EFV could improve risk assessment with calcium scoring.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cardiac computed tomography; Coronary artery calcium; Epicardial fat; Major adverse cardiac events; Prognostic value
Authors: Luis G D'Marco; Antonio Bellasi; Sunjin Kim; Zhengjia Chen; Geoffrey A Block; Paolo Raggi Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2013-07-30 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Paul Apfaltrer; Andreas Schindler; U Joseph Schoepf; John W Nance; Francesco Tricarico; Ullrich Ebersberger; Andrew D McQuiston; Mathias Meyer; Thomas Henzler; Stefan O Schoenberg; Fabian Bamberg; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2013-11-07 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Kathryn A Britton; Joseph M Massaro; Joanne M Murabito; Bernard E Kreger; Udo Hoffmann; Caroline S Fox Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-07-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Martin Greif; Alexander Wolfgang Leber; Tobias Saam; Christopher Uebleis; Franz von Ziegler; Janine Rümmler; Melvin D'Anastasi; Vivian Arias-Herrera; Christoph Becker; Gerhard Steinbeck; Marcus Hacker; Alexander Becker Journal: Cardiology Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 1.869
Authors: James V Spearman; Felix G Meinel; U Joseph Schoepf; Paul Apfaltrer; Justin R Silverman; Aleksander W Krazinski; Christian Canstein; Carlo Nicola De Cecco; Philip Costello; Lucas L Geyer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-11-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jon D Klingensmith; Addison L Elliott; Amy H Givan; Zechariah D Faszold; Cory L Mahan; Adam M Doedtman; Maria Fernandez-Del-Valle Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2019-02-07
Authors: Benjamin D Long; Jadranka Stojanovska; Richard K J Brown; Anil K Attili; Eizabeth A Jackson; Vladimir Ognenovski Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2017-08-26 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Mounes Aliyari Ghasabeh; Anneline S J M Te Riele; Cynthia A James; H S Vincent Chen; Crystal Tichnell; Brittney Murray; John Eng; Brian G Kral; Harikrishna Tandri; Hugh Calkins; Ihab R Kamel; Stefan L Zimmerman Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-08-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Caterina B Monti; Marina Codari; Carlo Nicola De Cecco; Francesco Secchi; Francesco Sardanelli; Arthur E Stillman Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 3.039