Zizi Saad1, Mohamed El-Rawy1, Ragab H Donkol1, Sami Boghattas1. 1. Zizi Saad, Mohamed El-Rawy, Cardiology Department, Aseer Central Hospital, Abha, Saudi Arabia and Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Ash Sharqia Governorate 44516, Egypt.
Abstract
AIM: To compare the predictive value of three methods of epicardial fat (EF) assessment for presence of significant coronary artery disease (CAD) [i.e., epicardial fat volume (EFV), EFV indexed with body surface area (EFV/BSA) and EFV indexed with body mass index (EFV/BMI)]. METHODS: The study was performed on 170 patients (85 women and 85 men) with clinical suspicion of CAD. They aged 26-89 years with a median age of 54 years. The patients were classified into three groups: Group 1: 58 patients with normal coronary arteries; group 2: 48 patients with non-significant CAD and group 3: 64 patients with significant CAD. The three methods for assessment of epicardial fat were retrospectively studied to determine the best method to predict the presence of significant CAD. RESULTS: The three methods for epicardial fat quantification and measurements, i.e., EFV, EFV/BSA and EFV/BMI with post- hoc analysis showed a significant difference between patients with significant coronary artery disease compared to the normal group. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed no significant difference between the three methods of epicardial fat measurements, the area under curve ranging between 0.6 and 0.62. The optimal cut-off was 80.3 cm(3) for EFV, 2.4 cm(3)/m(2) for EFV indexed with BMI and 41.7 cm(3)/(kg/m(2)) for EFV indexed with BSA. For this cut-off the sensitivity ranged between 0.92 and 0.94, while specificity varied from 0.31 to 0.35. CONCLUSION: Any one of the three methods for assessment of epicardial fat can be used to predict significant CAD since all have the same equivalent predictive value.
AIM: To compare the predictive value of three methods of epicardial fat (EF) assessment for presence of significant coronary artery disease (CAD) [i.e., epicardial fat volume (EFV), EFV indexed with body surface area (EFV/BSA) and EFV indexed with body mass index (EFV/BMI)]. METHODS: The study was performed on 170 patients (85 women and 85 men) with clinical suspicion of CAD. They aged 26-89 years with a median age of 54 years. The patients were classified into three groups: Group 1: 58 patients with normal coronary arteries; group 2: 48 patients with non-significant CAD and group 3: 64 patients with significant CAD. The three methods for assessment of epicardial fat were retrospectively studied to determine the best method to predict the presence of significant CAD. RESULTS: The three methods for epicardial fat quantification and measurements, i.e., EFV, EFV/BSA and EFV/BMI with post- hoc analysis showed a significant difference between patients with significant coronary artery disease compared to the normal group. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed no significant difference between the three methods of epicardial fat measurements, the area under curve ranging between 0.6 and 0.62. The optimal cut-off was 80.3 cm(3) for EFV, 2.4 cm(3)/m(2) for EFV indexed with BMI and 41.7 cm(3)/(kg/m(2)) for EFV indexed with BSA. For this cut-off the sensitivity ranged between 0.92 and 0.94, while specificity varied from 0.31 to 0.35. CONCLUSION: Any one of the three methods for assessment of epicardial fat can be used to predict significant CAD since all have the same equivalent predictive value.
Authors: Allen J Taylor; Manuel Cerqueira; John McB Hodgson; Daniel Mark; James Min; Patrick O'Gara; Geoffrey D Rubin Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-10-25 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Haim Shmilovich; Damini Dey; Victor Y Cheng; Ronak Rajani; Ryo Nakazato; Yuka Otaki; Rine Nakanishi; Piotr J Slomka; Louise E J Thomson; Sean W Hayes; John D Friedman; Heidi Gransar; Nathan D Wong; Leslee J Shaw; Matthew Budoff; Alan Rozanski; Daniel S Berman Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2011-08-30 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Salim Yusuf; Steven Hawken; Stephanie Ounpuu; Leonelo Bautista; Maria Grazia Franzosi; Patrick Commerford; Chim C Lang; Zvonko Rumboldt; Churchill L Onen; Liu Lisheng; Supachai Tanomsup; Paul Wangai; Fahad Razak; Arya M Sharma; Sonia S Anand Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-11-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: John H Nichols; Bharat Samy; Khurram Nasir; Caroline S Fox; P Christian Schulze; Fabian Bamberg; Udo Hoffmann Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2008-08-19
Authors: Nikolaos Alexopoulos; Dalton S McLean; Matthew Janik; Chesnal D Arepalli; Arthur E Stillman; Paolo Raggi Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2009-11-20 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Emilie H Zobel; Regitse Højgaard Christensen; Signe A Winther; Philip Hasbak; Christian Stevns Hansen; Bernt J von Scholten; Lene Holmvang; Andreas Kjaer; Peter Rossing; Tine W Hansen Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2020-02-10 Impact factor: 9.951