Patients with congestive heart failure had significantly less epicardial fat mass assessed volumetrically by CMR compared with healthy controls (51 g vs. 65 g, p=0.01).
Observational (n=71)
Does volumetric assessment of epicardial adipose tissue using CMR provide a more reproducible measure of epicardial fat compared to one-dimensional thickness measurements in patients with heart failure and healthy controls?
Volumetric assessment of epicardial fat mass using CMR is feasible and offers superior reproducibility compared to conventional one-dimensional thickness measurements.
Absolute Event Rate: 51% vs 65%
p-value: p=0.01
OBJECTIVE: Previous studies determined the amount of epicardial fat by measuring the right ventricular epicardial fat thickness. However, it is not proven whether this one-dimensional method correlates well with the absolute amount of epicardial fat. In this prospective study, a new cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) method using the three-dimensional summation of slices method was introduced to assess the total amount of epicardial fat. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: CMR was performed in 43 patients with congestive heart failure and in 28 healthy controls. The absolute amount of epicardial fat was assessed volumetrically in consecutive short-axis views by means of the modified Simpson's rule. Additionally, the right ventricular epicardial fat thickness was measured in two different imaging planes: long-axis view (EFT-4CV) and consecutive short-axis views (EFT-SAX). RESULTS: Using the volumetric approach, patients with congestive heart failure had less epicardial fat mass than controls (51 g vs. 65 g, p=0.01). This finding was supported by EFT-SAX (2.9 mm vs. 4.3 mm, p<0.0001) but not by EFT-4CV (3.5 mm vs. 3.8 mm, p=not significant). Epicardial fat mass correlated moderately with EFT-SAX in both groups (r=0.466, p=0.012 in controls and r=0.590, p<0.0001 in patients) and with EFT-4CV in controls (r=0.387, p=0.042). There were no significant differences between EFT-4CV and EFT-SAX in controls (4.3 mm vs. 3.8 mm, p=0.240). However, in the heart failure group, EFT-4CV was significantly higher compared with EFT-SAX (3.5 mm vs. 2.9 mm, p=0.003). Interobserver variability and reproducibility were superior for the volumetric approach compared with thickness measurements. DISCUSSION: Quantitative assessment of epicardial fat mass using the CMR-based volumetric approach is feasible and yields superior reproducibility compared with conventional methods.
Flüchter et al. (Sun,) conducted a observational in Congestive heart failure (n=71). Congestive heart failure vs. Healthy controls was evaluated on Epicardial fat mass (p=0.01). Patients with congestive heart failure had significantly less epicardial fat mass assessed volumetrically by CMR compared with healthy controls (51 g vs. 65 g, p=0.01).