| Literature DB >> 26475608 |
Min Hae Park1, Áine Skow2, Sara De Matteis3,4, Anthony S Kessel5, Sonia Saxena6, Russell M Viner7, Sanjay Kinra8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adiposity in childhood is associated with later cardiovascular disease (CVD), but it is unclear whether this relationship is independent of other risk factors experienced in later life, such as smoking and hypertension. Carotid-intima media thickness (cIMT) is a measure of subclinical atherosclerosis that may be used to assess CVD risk in young people. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between adiposity and cIMT in children and adolescents.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26475608 PMCID: PMC4609088 DOI: 10.1186/s12887-015-0478-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pediatr ISSN: 1471-2431 Impact factor: 2.125
Fig. 1Flowchart of study selection process during systematic search
Characteristics of studies included in review
| Reference | Country | Population (n) | % overweight (incl. obese) | % female | Age range, years | cIMT measurement method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arnaiz et al. 2010 [ | Chile | Schools (103) | 56 | 46.6 | 6−16 | Ultrasonography; measurement location not reported; automated edge detection. Number of measurements not reported. |
| Böhm et al. 2009 [ | Germany | Schools (267) | 11.6 | 53.6 | 6−17 | Ultrasonography; measurement proximal to carotid artery bifurcation; automated edge detection. Mean of 11 measurements used for analysis. |
| Casariu et al. 2011 [ | Romania | Schools (100) | 50 | 58.0 | 6−18 | Ultrasonography; measurement at the common carotid artery near the bifurcation, during end diastole. Maximal thicknesses of the intima-media width measured to give three readings and the mean value was used for analysis. |
| Caserta et al. 2010 [ | Italy | Primary schools (575) | 31.1 | 49.9 | 11−13 | Ultrasonography; measurement of far wall at 3 locations below bifurcation. Mean of these measurements used for analysis. |
| Croymans et al. 2010 [ | United States | High schools (249) | 15 % had BMI centile > 95th | 67.5 | 15−18 | Ultrasonography; images of the far wall of the common carotid artery taken from multiple angles; automated edge detection. Mean of these measurements used for analysis. |
| Dawson et al. 2009 [ | United States | Offspring of population-based cohort (228 aged < 18) | NR | 44.3 | 11−17 | Ultrasonography; near and far wall of the left and right internal, bifurcation and common carotid arteries imaged at three angles; automated edge detection. The mean across angles used to obtain location-specific means; the average of these 12 measures used for analysis. |
| Doyon et al. 2013 [ | Turkey, Germany, Sweden, Poland | Nonobese, nonhypertensive children (1,051) | Nonobese sample | 53.2 | 6−18 | Ultrasonography; cIMT was obtained either by 5 averaged measurements on each common carotid artery or semiautomatically using a digital image evaluation software, depending on the availability of the software package at each centre. |
| Elkiran 2013 [ | Turkey | Schools (123) | 74.0 | 54.5 | 11−15 | Ultrasonography; measurement of left common carotid artery. Number of measurements not reported. |
| Geerts 2012 [ | Netherlands | Population-based birth cohort (306) | NR | 55.5 | 5 | Ultrasonography (high resolution echo-tracking); measurement of right common carotid artery. Measurement repeated a maximum of four times. |
| Jourdan et al. 2005 [ | Germany and Poland | Schools (247) | NR | 51.4 | 10−20 | Ultrasonography; far wall measured manually using the calliper method. |
| Kollias et al. 2013 [ | Greece | Schools (448) | 28.1 % overweight, 12.7 % obese | 52.9 | 10−18 | Ultrasonography; bilateral measurements at the point of maximum thickness on the far wall along a 1 cm section of each common carotid artery proximal to the carotid bulb; measurement using electronic calipers. Mean of 3–4 measurements for each side used for analysis. |
| Lamotte et al. 2013 [ | France | Schools (319) | 13.5 % overweight 3.4 % obese | 57.7 % | 12.5−17.5 | Ultrasonography; bilateral assessment along 10 mm segment of common carotid arteries, ≥5 mm from the bifurcation; one hundred measurements on average on the far wall on each side; automated. Mean value of left and right measures used for analysis. |
| Lim et al. 2009 [ | South Korea | High school (285) | 13.3 | 48.4 | 14−17 | Ultrasonography; bilateral measurements of near and far walls of common carotid arteries; Automated edge-detection. Maximum IMT value determined for each side and the average used for analysis. |
| Melo et al. 2014 [ | Portugal | Schools (385) | 28.3 | 50.9 | 11−13 | Ultrasonography; measurement on far wall of right common carotid artery; Automated edge-detection. Number of measurements not reported. |
| Mittelman et al. 2010 [ | United States | Schools and universities (599) | 32.7 | 51.3 | 6−20 | Ultrasonography; measurement on far walls of left common carotid artery 1 cm proximal to the bifurcation during 3 complete separate cardiac cycles; Automated edge-detection. Average reading of all 3 systolic and 3 diastolic frames used for analyses. |
| Osiniri et al. [ | Spain | Well child visits at primary care centres (135) | NR | 53.3 | NR, mean 7.1 ± 1.1 | Ultrasonography; diastolic images obtained from far wall of the distal common carotid artery 1 cm from bifurcation. Averages of 5 measurements used for analyses. |
| Ozguven et al. 2010 [ | Turkey | Schools (142) | 49.3 | 55.6 | 13−18 | Ultrasonography; measurement on far wall of left common carotid artery. Mean of at least four measurements taken ~10 mm proximal to bifurcation used for analyses. |
| Pandit et al. 2014 [ | India | Private schools; routine health checks (250) | 71.2 | NR | 6−17 | Ultrasonography (echo-tracking); measurement at right common carotid artery; Automated edge-detection. Number of measurements not reported. |
| Sass et al. 1998 [ | France | Population-based cohort (193) | NR | 56.0 | 10−24 (mean 15.5) | Ultrasonography; bilateral measurement on ≥1 cm segment of carotid arteries at 3 cm proximal to the bifurcation. Average of 25–50 readings per measurement, with two measurements obtained per segment. Average of right and left measurements used for analysis. |
| Urbina et al. 2009 [ | United States | 318 | 43.4 | 62.3 | 10−24 (mean age 17.8) | Ultrasonography; bilateral measurements of three segments of carotid arteries. Trace technique to measure maximum thickness on right and left sides, and averaged for the common carotid artery, the bifurcation (carotid bulb), and the internal carotid artery. |
| Weghuber et al. 2013 [ | Austria | Residents of Graz and Styria (104 subsample) | 46.2 | 56.7 | 4−18 | Ultrasonography; bilateral measurements of the bulbous near common carotid arteries. Maximal IMT recorded at each of the vessel segments and averaged for each side. |
| Whincup et al. 2012 [ | United Kingdom | Primary schools (939) | NR | 53 | NR, mean 10.8 ± 0.4 | Ultrasonography; bilateral measurement on far walls of common carotid arteries proximal to the carotid bifurcation. Three end-diastolic frames selected and analyzed for mean cIMT on each side. Mean of left- and right-sided readings used for analysis. |
BMI body mass index, NR not reported, cIMT carotid intima-media thickness
Associations between adiposity and cIMT in children and adolescents, expressed as correlation coefficients
| Reference | Age range, years | Adiposity measure | All participants | Females | Males | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r | P | r | P | r | P | |||
|
| ||||||||
| Böhm et al. 2009 [ | 6-17 | BMI | - | - |
| <0.001 | 0.14 | 0.11 |
| Body fat % | - | - |
| <0.001 | 0.06 | 0.46 | ||
| Casariu et al. 2011 [ | 6-18 | BMI |
| <0.05 | - | - | - | - |
| Waist circumference |
| <0.05 | - | - | - | - | ||
| Hip circumference |
| <0.05 | - | - | - | - | ||
| Croymans et al. 2010 [ | 15-18 | BMI centile | 0.08* | 0.22* | - | - | - | - |
| Dawson et al. 2009 [ | 11-17 | BMI |
| <0.05 | - | - | - | - |
| Waist/hip ratio |
| <0.001 | - | - | - | - | ||
| Doyon et al. 2013 [ | 6-18 | BMI |
| <0.001 | - | - | - | - |
| BMI SDS |
| <0.001 | - | - | - | - | ||
| Jourdan et al. 2005 [ | 10-20 | BMI |
| <0.001 | - | - | - | - |
| BMI SDSa |
| <0.001 | - | - | - | - | ||
| Kollias et al. 2013 [ | 10-18 | BMI Z-score | 0.05 | NS | - | - | - | - |
| Waist circumference |
| <0.05 | - | - | - | - | ||
| Waist to hip ratio |
| <0.05 | - | - | - | - | ||
| Lamotte et al. 2013 [ | 12-17 | BMI | 0.03 | NS | −0.03 | NS | 0.09 | NS |
| BMI Z-score | 0.04 | NS | −0.002 | NS | 0.08 | NS | ||
| Fat mass | −0.04 | NS | −0.06 | NS | 0.04 | NS | ||
| Waist circumference | 0.04 | NS | −0.07 | NS | 0.1 | NS | ||
| Waist/hip ratio | 0.04 | NS | −0.03 | NS | 0.02 | NS | ||
| Lim et al. 2009 [ | 14-17 | BMI | 0.0499 | 0.402 | - | - | - | - |
| Waist circumference | −0.0215 | 0.718 | - | - | - | - | ||
| Melo et al. 2014 [ | 11-13 | BMI |
| <0.001 | - | - | - | - |
| Body fat mass by DXA |
| 0.003 | - | - | - | - | ||
| Trunk fat mass by DXA |
| 0.002 | - | - | - | - | ||
| Waist circumference |
| <0.001 | - | - | - | - | ||
| Mittelman et al. 2010 [ | 6-20 | BMI z-score | - | - |
| <0.001 |
| <0.001 |
| Waist circumference | - | - |
| <0.001 |
| <0.001 | ||
| Hip circumference | - | - |
| <0.001 |
| <0.001 | ||
| Waist/hip ratio | - | - |
| 0.005 |
| 0.0271 | ||
| Sass et al. 1998 [ | 10-24 | Fat mass (kg) | - | - | −0.029 | NS | 0.135 | NS |
| Body fat % | - | - | −0.057 | NS | 0.024 | NS | ||
| BMI | - | - | −0.033 | NS | 0.146 | NS | ||
| Waist/hip ratio | - | - | 0.069 | NS | −0.016 | NS | ||
|
| ||||||||
| Osiniri et al. 2012 [ | Mean 7.1 ± 1.1 | BMI z-scoreb | 0.040 | NS | - | - | - | - |
| Body fat % | 0.042 | NS | - | - | - | - | ||
| waist circumferenceb | 0.048 | NS | - | - | - | - | ||
Coefficients in bold were statistically significant (P < 0.05)
cIMT carotid intima-media thickness, BMI body mass index kg/m2, DXA Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, NS not significant, P-value not reported, SDS standard deviation score
*r and P values obtained from the author
aOutcome was age- and height-specific cIMT standard deviation score
bLog transformed
Other measures of associations between cIMT and adiposity measures in children and adolescents
| Reference | Age range, years | Adiposity measure(s) | Measure of association |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Mean cIMT (mm) | |||||
| Arnaiz 2010 [ | 6-16 | Normal weight | 0.50 ± 0.03 | NR | |
| Overweight | 0.49 ± 0.02 | ||||
| Obese | 0.49 ± 0.03 | ||||
| Elkiran 2013 [ | 11-15 | Healthy weight |
| 0.001 | |
| Overweight |
| ||||
| Obese |
| ||||
| Ozguven et al. 2010 [ | 13-18 | Normal weight |
| <0.001 | |
| Overweight |
| ||||
| Obese |
| ||||
| Pandit et al. 2014 [ | 6-17 | Normal weight |
| <0.05 | |
| Overweight/obese |
| ||||
| Urbina et al. 2009 [ | 10-24 | Lean | 0.52 ± 0.08 | NS | |
| Obese | 0.50 ± 0.09 | ||||
| Weghuber et al. 2013 | 4-18 | Normal weight |
| <0.001 | |
| Overweight/obese |
| ||||
| cIMT >75th centile (%) | |||||
| Caserta et al. 2010 [ | 11-13 | Males | Females | ||
| Non-overweight | 28.3 % | 20.7 % | <0.05 | ||
| Overweight | 38.9 % |
| |||
| Obese |
|
| |||
|
| |||||
| Mean cIMT (μm) | |||||
| Geerts et al. 2012 [ | 5 | BMI tertiles | 0.17 | ||
| First | 380.4 ± 37.4 | ||||
| Second | 387.4 ± 32.8 | ||||
| Third | 389.9 ± 41.0 | ||||
| Change in cIMT (mm) per SD increase of adiposity measure | |||||
| Whincup et al. 2012 [ | NR, mean 10.8 ± 0.4 | Ponderal indexa | −0.0007 (−0.0029 to 0.0015) | 0.54 | |
| Skinfoldsa | − | 0.02 | |||
| Fat mass indexa | −0.0019 (−0.0041 to 0.0003) | 0.09 | |||
Numbers in bold were statistically significant (P < 0.05)
cIMT carotid intima-media thickness, NR not reported, NS not significant, p-value not reported, CI confidence interval, SD standard deviation
aLog transformed and adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, observer, and month
bFrom Fisher exact test compared to non-overweight
cOverweight/obese compared to healthy weight
dFrom Kruskal-Wallis test