| Literature DB >> 30400581 |
Artur Junio Togneri Ferron1, Fabiane Valentini Francisqueti2, Igor Otávio Minatel3, Carol Cristina Vágula de Almeida Silva4, Silméia Garcia Zanati Bazan5, Koody André Hassemi Kitawara6, Jéssica Leite Garcia7, Camila Renata Corrêa8, Fernando Moreto9, Ana Lucia A Ferreira10.
Abstract
The high consumption of fat and sugar contributes to the development of obesity and co-morbidities, such as dyslipidemia, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between dyslipidemia and cardiac dysfunction induced by western diet consumption. Wistar rats were randomly divided into two experimental groups and fed ad libitum for 20 weeks with a control diet (Control, n = 12) or a high-sugar and high-fat diet (HSF, n = 12). The HSF group also received water + sucrose (25%). Evaluations included feed and caloric intake; body weight; plasma glucose; insulin; uric acid; HOMA-IR; lipid profile: [total cholesterol (T-chol), high-density lipoprotein (HDL), non-HDL Chol, triglycerides (TG)]; systolic blood pressure, and Doppler echocardiographic. Compared to the control group, animals that consumed the HSF diet presented higher weight gain, caloric intake, feed efficiency, insulin, HOMA-IR, and glucose levels, and lipid profile impairment (higher TG, T-chol, non-HDL chol and lower HDL). HSF diet was also associated with atrial-ventricular structural impairment and systolic-diastolic dysfunction. Positive correlation was also found among the following parameters: insulin versus estimated LV mass (r = 0.90, p = 0.001); non-HDL versus deceleration time (r = 0.46, p = 0.02); TG versus deceleration time (r = 0.50, p = 0.01). In summary, our results suggest cardiac remodeling lead by western diet is associated with metabolic parameters.Entities:
Keywords: cardiac remodeling; dyslipidemia; obesity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30400581 PMCID: PMC6266980 DOI: 10.3390/nu10111675
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Nutritional composition of the diets.
| Diet | ||
|---|---|---|
| Ingredients | Control | HSF |
| Soybean meal (g/kg) | 335 | 340 |
| Sorghum (g/kg) | 278 | 80 |
| Soy hulls (g/kg) | 188.5 | 116.7 |
| Dextrin (g/kg) | 146.5 | 20 |
| Sucrose (g/kg) | - | 80 |
| Fructose (g/kg) | - | 180 |
| Soy oil (g/kg) | 14 | - |
| Lard (g/kg) | - | 154.3 |
| Minerals (g/kg) | 25 | 25 |
| Salt (g/kg) | 4 | 8 |
|
| ||
| Protein (%) | 20 | 16 |
| Carbohydrate (%) | 60 | 70 |
| Fat (%) | 4 | 14.6 |
| % Energy from protein | 22.85 | 13.45 |
| % Energy from carbohydrate | 66.78 | 58.69 |
| % Energy from fat | 10.37 | 27.8 |
| Energy (kcal/g) | 3.59 | 4.35 |
HSF diet had 25% of sucrose in drinking water.
Figure 1Nutritional profile of the groups. (A) weight gain (g); (B) feed consumption (g/day); (C) caloric intake(kcal/day); (D) feed efficiency (%). HSF—high-sugar high-fat group. * indicates p < 0.05.
Effect of high-sugar and high-fat (HSF) diet on plasma metabolic parameters.
| Groups | ||
|---|---|---|
| Variables | Control ( | HSF ( |
| Glucose (mg/dL) | 83.4 ± 6.3 | 97.9 ± 8.5 * |
| Insulin (mg/dL) | 2.5 ± 1.2 | 5.2 ± 1.3 * |
| HOMA-IR | 21.3 ± 9.6 | 50.7 ± 11.2 * |
Data presented as means ± SD. Control and high-sugar high-fat (HSF) groups; n: animals numbers; HOMA-IR: homeostatic model assessment index; * p < 0.05 versus C; Student’s t-test for independent samples.
Figure 2Effect of HSF diet on lipid profile. (A) T-Chol: Total Cholesterol (mg/dL); (B) TG: Triglycerides (mg/dL); (C) Non-HDL Chol:(mg/dL); (D) HDL: High-density lipoprotein (mg/dL). Control group; HSF-high-sugar high-fat group. * indicates p < 0.05.
Effect of HSF diet on hemodynamic and cardiac remodeling.
| Variables | Groups | |
|---|---|---|
| Control ( | HSF ( | |
| LVDD, mm | 7.50 ± 0.40 | 6.53 ± 0.49 * |
| LVSD, mm | 2.68 ± 0.34 | 3.31 ± 0.44 * |
| LVPWD, mm | 1.54 ± 0.11 | 1.97 ± 0.11 * |
| Aorta diameter, mm | 3.79 ± 0.24 | 4.01 ± 0.19 * |
| Left Atrium | 4.73 ± 0.20 | 6.17 ± 0.41 * |
| Estimated LV mass, g | 1.56 ± 0.32 | 2.03 ± 0.23 * |
| Relative wall thickness | 0.45 ± 0.03 | 0.58 ± 0.06 * |
| Systolic volume, mL | 23.5 ± 2.8 | 26.6 ± 5.8 |
| Shortening Δ% endo | 58.2 ± 3.3 | 52.5 ± 55.3 * |
| Shortening Δ% meso | 25.6 ± 2.1 | 25.3 ± 2.7 |
| Ejection fraction, % | 0.92 ± 0.01 | 0.89 ± 0.03 * |
| Deceleration time, MS | 44.1 ± 7.8 | 53.4 ± 9.4 * |
| Ew, m/s | 78.9 ± 8.4 | 77.9 ± 6.6 |
| Aw, m/s | 48.7 ± 11.6 | 45.9 ± 14.1 |
| E/A, m/s | 1.67 ± 0.27 | 1.85 ± 0.64 |
| IRT | 22.9 ± 3.1 | 28.1 ± 4.8 * |
| Systolic blood pressure, mmHg | 126 ± 5 | 136 ± 5 * |
Data presented as means ± SD. Control and high-sugar high-fat (HSF) groups; n: animals numbers; LV:Left ventricular; LVDD:Left ventricular diastolic diameter; LVSD:Left ventricular systolic diameter; LVPWD:diastolic posterior wall thickness; Aw: A-wave mitral inflow velocity; Ew: E-wave mitral inflow deceleration time; IRT: Isovolumetric relaxion time; * p < 0.05 versus Control; Student’s t-test for independent samples.
Figure 3Correlation between echocardiographic and biochemical parameters. EF: Ejection Fraction; (A) Non-HDL Chol:(mg/dL)/EF; (B) TG: HDL: High-density lipoprotein(mg/dL)/EF; (C) Insulin:(mg/dL)/estimated LV mass; (D) Non-HDL Chol:(mg/dL)/Decelaration time and (E) Triglycerides (mg/dL)/Decelaration time. Control group (○), HSF group (●); Pearson regression was used to examine the associations between variables.