| Literature DB >> 33969022 |
Maria Inês Rosa1, Antonio José Grande2, Leticia Dorsa Lima2, Eduardo Ronconi Dondossola1, Maria Laura Rodrigues Uggioni1, Adrian V Hernandez3,4, Gary Tse5, Tong Liu6, Octávio Marques Pontes-Neto7, Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai8, Mansueto Gomes Neto9,10,11,12, André Rodrigues Durães10, Michel Pompeu B O Sá13,14,15, Elmiro Santos Resende16,17, Leonardo Roever17.
Abstract
Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) is correlated with endothelial dysfunction, metabolic syndrome, increased mortality and recent studies showed a possible association with the increased risk of stroke. We performed a systematic review of studies evaluating the association between EAT and stroke. Eighty studies met the inclusion criteria and were consequently analyzed. The review had Five main findings. First, the increased epicardial fat thickness (EFT) may be associated with the stroke episode. Second, regardless of the imaging method (echocardiography, MRI, and CT) this association remains. Third, the association of metabolic syndrome and atrial fibrillation seems to increase the risk of stroke. Fourth, this systematic review was considered as low risk of bias. Despite being unable to establish a clear association between EAT and stroke, we have organized and assessed all the research papers on this topic, analyzing their limitations, suggesting improvements in future pieces of research and pointing out gaps in the literature. Furthermore, the mechanistic links between increased EAT and stroke incidence remains unclear, thus, further research is warranted.Entities:
Keywords: atherosclerosis; epicardial adipose tissue; metabolic syndrome; stroke; systematic review
Year: 2021 PMID: 33969022 PMCID: PMC8096977 DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.658445
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med ISSN: 2297-055X
Figure 1Flowchart.
Characteristics of primary studies.
| Altun et al. ( | Turkey | Case-control | 71.4 ± 11/68.6 ± 8 | 61 (34/27) | 82 (40/42) | Found between the heart and pericardium/ | Clinical signs in the last 24 h | 4,8 ± 0,9mm | 3,8 ± 0,7mm | OR 3.178 (95%CI- 1.404–7.195). |
| Akil et al. ( | Turkey | Cross sectional | 50.5 ± 13.9/53.7 ± 9.0 | 38 (15/23) | 47 (20/27) | Space between the pericardial layers/ | Computed Tomography and magnetic resonance imaging | 6,0 ± 1mm | 4,4 ± 0,9mm | OR 10.436 (95% CI- 3.032–35.570). |
| Chu et al. ( | Taiwan | Prospective cohort | 68 ± 10/73 ± 10 | 93 (30/63) | 97 (32/65) | Space located between the visceral pericardium and the external wall of the myocardium/ | Clinical signs | 8,1 ± 1,6mm | 4.4 ± 0.9mm | HR univariable 1.286 (95% CI - 1.168–1.417). HR multivariable 1.211 (95% CI - 1.084–1.351). |
| Tsao et al. ( | Taiwan | Cross sectional | 64.11 ± 11.43/63.25 ± 7.56 | 27 (8/21) Patients with atrial fibrillation | 20 (5/15) | Fat located between the visceral pericardium and the myocardium / Computed Tomography | Clinical signs | 53,07 ± 14.67 cm3 | 21.46 ± 14.64 cm3 | Univariable OR 1,15 (95% CI-1,09–1,21). Multivariable 1,12 (95% CI - 1,06–1,19). |
| Cho et al. ( | Korea | Retrospective Cohort | 65.4 ± 12.1/75.0 ± 10.6 | Ischemic stroke without AF: 179 (65/114) | There was no control | Epicardial fat was defined as the echo-free space between the Outer wall of the myocardium and the visceral layer of t e pericardium. | Magnetic resonance imaging | 6.5 ± 1.2mm | 5.3 ± 1.2mm | Uninformed. |
| Tsao et al. ( | Taiwan | Case-control | uninformed | 20 Patients with atrial fibrillation | 34 | uninformed/Computed Tomography | uninformed | 60.27 ± 13.10 cm3 | 24.34 ± 6.78 cm3 | Uninformed. |
| Gürdal et al. ( | Turkey | Case-control | 43 ± 8/38 ± 7 | 40 (16/24) | 37 (20/17) | Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT), is a visceral fat depot of the heart, is located on the surface of the heart between the myocardium and visceral pericardium/ | ESUS was defined according to the criteria proposed by the Cryptogenic Stroke/ESUS International Working Group as a visualized nonlacunar brain infarct in the absence of the following causes: extracranial or intracranial atherosclerosis causing ≥50% luminal stenosis in arteries supplying the area of ischemia; major cardioembolic sources; and any other specific cause of stroke (eg, vasculitis, dissection, migraine/vasospasm, drug misuse)./MRI | 5.51 ± 0.82mm | 3.96 ± 0.51 | Uninformed |
| Cosansu and Yilmaz ( | Turkey | cross-sectional | 75.19 ± 9.39; | 80 (50/30) | 80 (46/34) | Echocardiographic evaluations were performed in the first three days after hospitalization. | The prediction of acute ischemic stroke by echocardiographic EFT was estimated. | 5.90 ± 1.35 mm | 8.55 ± 1.08 mm | OR Univariate analysis: EFT = 23.449, 95%CI: 5.773–95.244 ( |
CI, confidence interval; AF, atrial fibrillation; OR, odds ratio; HR, hazard ratio.
Quality of included studies evaluated with the downs and black checklist (studies with case-control design).
| Altun et al. ( | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 21 |
| Tsao et al. ( | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 11 |
| Chu et al. ( | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 20 |
| Cho et al. ( | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 26 |
| Gürdal et al. ( | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 22 |
Quality of included studies assessed by the JBI critical appraisal checklist (cross sectional studies).
| 1. Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined? | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 2. Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail? | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 3. Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way? | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 4. Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition? | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 5. Were confounding factors identified? | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 6. Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 7. Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way? | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 8. Was appropriate statistical analysis used? | Yes | Yes | Yes |