Margaret A Crawford1, Michael H Criqui2, Nketi Forbang2, Jonathan T Unkart2, Matthew A Allison2, Britta A Larsen3. 1. University of California, San Diego/San Diego State University Joint Doctoral Program in Public Health, 9500 Gilman Dr., La Jolla, CA 92093-0965, United States of America. 2. Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr., La Jolla, CA 92093-0965, United States of America. 3. Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr., La Jolla, CA 92093-0965, United States of America. Electronic address: blarsen@ucsd.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to the opposing cardiovascular risk profiles of CAC volume and density, we tested the hypothesis that increased abdominal muscle area (AMA) and density (AMD) were significantly associated with lower coronary arterial calcium (CAC) volume and higher CAC density. METHODS: Using data from 787 participants from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, Ancillary Body Composition Study, we analyzed abdominal and chest computed tomography (CT) scans. Abdominal scans were scored for muscle area, muscle density (attenuation) and visceral and subcutaneous fat. Chest scans were scored for CAC volume and Agatston values, which were used to derive CAC density scores. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age and BMI of the participants was 67.8 (9.0) years and 27.9 (4.8) kg/m2, respectively. Forty-one percent were female, 46% were Caucasian, 60% had hypertension, 17% had diabetes, and 46% had dyslipidemia. AMA was positively associated with CAC volume (p < .001) and inversely associated with CAC density (p < .001). Conversely, AMD was inversely associated with CAC volume and positively associated with CAC density in minimally adjusted models (p < .001), but not significant in confounder adjusted models. CONCLUSION: AMA and AMD had differing associations with CAC volume and density, with AMA significantly associated with a higher risk CAC profile (high volume, low density) and AMD not significantly associated with CAC volume or density. Future research needs to account for the unique components of both muscle composition and CAC.
BACKGROUND: Due to the opposing cardiovascular risk profiles of CAC volume and density, we tested the hypothesis that increased abdominal muscle area (AMA) and density (AMD) were significantly associated with lower coronary arterial calcium (CAC) volume and higher CAC density. METHODS: Using data from 787 participants from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, Ancillary Body Composition Study, we analyzed abdominal and chest computed tomography (CT) scans. Abdominal scans were scored for muscle area, muscle density (attenuation) and visceral and subcutaneous fat. Chest scans were scored for CAC volume and Agatston values, which were used to derive CAC density scores. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age and BMI of the participants was 67.8 (9.0) years and 27.9 (4.8) kg/m2, respectively. Forty-one percent were female, 46% were Caucasian, 60% had hypertension, 17% had diabetes, and 46% had dyslipidemia. AMA was positively associated with CAC volume (p < .001) and inversely associated with CAC density (p < .001). Conversely, AMD was inversely associated with CAC volume and positively associated with CAC density in minimally adjusted models (p < .001), but not significant in confounder adjusted models. CONCLUSION: AMA and AMD had differing associations with CAC volume and density, with AMA significantly associated with a higher risk CAC profile (high volume, low density) and AMD not significantly associated with CAC volume or density. Future research needs to account for the unique components of both muscle composition and CAC.
Authors: B E Ainsworth; W L Haskell; M C Whitt; M L Irwin; A M Swartz; S J Strath; W L O'Brien; D R Bassett; K H Schmitz; P O Emplaincourt; D R Jacobs; A S Leon Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Steven J Prior; Lyndon J Joseph; Josef Brandauer; Leslie I Katzel; James M Hagberg; Alice S Ryan Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2007-01-02 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Gabriel Q Shaibi; Martha L Cruz; Geoff D C Ball; Marc J Weigensberg; George J Salem; Noe C Crespo; Michael I Goran Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Mike Saji; D Scott Lim; Michael Ragosta; Damien J LaPar; Emily Downs; Ravi K Ghanta; John A Kern; John M Dent; Gorav Ailawadi Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2016-05-05 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Anne B Newman; Varant Kupelian; Marjolein Visser; Eleanor M Simonsick; Bret H Goodpaster; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Frances A Tylavsky; Susan M Rubin; Tamara B Harris Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Nicole E Jensky; Matthew A Allison; Rohit Loomba; Mercedes R Carnethon; Ian H de Boer; Matthew J Budoff; Greg L Burke; Michael H Criqui; Joachim H Ix Journal: Metabolism Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 8.694
Authors: Diane E Bild; David A Bluemke; Gregory L Burke; Robert Detrano; Ana V Diez Roux; Aaron R Folsom; Philip Greenland; David R Jacob; Richard Kronmal; Kiang Liu; Jennifer Clark Nelson; Daniel O'Leary; Mohammed F Saad; Steven Shea; Moyses Szklo; Russell P Tracy Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2002-11-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Megan M Marron; Matthew Allison; Alka M Kanaya; Britta Larsen; Alexis C Wood; David Herrington; Philip Greenland; Iva Miljkovic Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2021-09-27 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Andreas Kammerlander; Asya Lyass; Taylor F Mahoney; Jana Taron; Parastou Eslami; Michael T Lu; Michelle T Long; Ramachandran S Vasan; Joseph M Massaro; Udo Hoffmann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-07-02 Impact factor: 7.034