Fat-Free Mass Index, Visceral Fat Level, and Muscle Mass Percentage Better Explain Deviations From the Expected Value of Aortic Pressure and Structural and Functional Arterial Properties Than Body Fat Indexes

Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)-derived indexes [e.g., fat (FMI) and fat-free mass indexes (FFMI), visceral fat level (VFL)] are used to characterize obesity as a cardiovascular risk factor (CRF). The BIA-derived index that better predicts arterial variability is still discussed. Aims To determine: (1) the association of classical [weight, height, body mass index (BMI), basal metabolic rate (BMR)] and BIA-derived indexes, with arterial properties deviations from expected values (arterial z-scores); (2) maximum arterial variations attributable to BIA-derived indexes; (3) whether the composition of total body, trunk and/or limbs is most closely associated with arterial variations. Methods Hemodynamic, structural, and functional parameters of different histological types of arteries were assessed ( n = 538, 7–85 years). Classical and BIA-derived indexes [fat mass and percentage, FMI, VFL, muscle mass percentage (PMM), FFMI, and percentage] were measured (mono- and multi-segmental devices). Arterial z-scores were obtained using age-related equations derived from individuals not-exposed to CRFs ( n = 1,688). Results First, regardless of the classical index considered, the associations with the arterial properties showed a specific hierarchy order: diameters and local stiffness > aortic and brachial blood pressure (BP) > regional stiffness. Second, all the associations of FMI and FFMI with z-scores were positive. Third, FFMI exceeded the association obtained with BMI and BMR, considering structural z-scores. In contrast, FMI did not exceed the association with z-scores achieved by BMI and BMR. Fourth, regardless of CRFs and classical indexes, arterial z-scores would be mainly explained by FFMI, VFL, and PMM. Fifth, regardless of the body-segment considered, the levels of association between FMI and z-scores did not exceed those found for classic and FFMI. Total fat mass and trunk indexes showed a greater strength of association with z-scores than the FMI of limbs. Sixth, compared to lower limb FFMI indexes, total and upper limbs FFMI showed higher levels of association with z-scores. Conclusions FFMI (but not FMI) exceeded the strength of association seen between BMI or BMR and structural z-scores. Regardless of the body segment analyzed, the associations between FMI and z-scores did not exceed those found with classic and FFMI. Arterial z-scores could be independently explained by FFMI, VFL, and PMM.