Key result
Epicardial adipose tissue volume was higher in asymptomatic patients with diabetes and myocardial ischemia but did not improve discrimination of ischemia over classic risk factors and CAC score (AROC 0.771 vs 0.773).
Why the study?
Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) is considered a novel diagnostic marker for cardiometabolic disease, but whether EAT volume independently associates with or predicts stress-induced myocardial ischemia in asymptomatic individuals with diabetes was unknown.
Does epicardial adipose tissue volume predict asymptomatic myocardial ischemia in patients with diabetes?
Cross-Sectional (n=274)
No
Does epicardial adipose tissue volume predict asymptomatic myocardial ischemia in patients with diabetes?
Effect estimate: AROC 0.771 (95% CI 0.683-0.858)
Absolute Event Rate: 0.771% vs 0.773%
While epicardial adipose tissue volume is associated with asymptomatic myocardial ischemia in patients with diabetes, it does not improve risk discrimination beyond classic clinical risk factors and coronary artery calcium score.
May inform ischemia risk assessment in asymptomatic diabetes; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical adoption.
Background Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) is considered a novel diagnostic marker for cardiometabolic disease. This study aimed to evaluate whether EAT volume was associated with stress-induced myocardial ischemia in asymptomatic people living with diabetes—independently of confounding factors—and whether it could predict this condition. Methods We included asymptomatic patients with diabetes and no coronary history, who had undergone both a stress a myocardial scintigraphy to diagnose myocardial ischemia, and a computed tomography to measure their coronary artery calcium (CAC) score. EAT volume was retrospectively measured from computed tomography imaging. Determinants of EAT volume and asymptomatic myocardial ischemia were evaluated. Results The study population comprised 274 individuals, including 153 men. Mean (± standard deviation) age was 62 ± 9 years, and 243, 23 and 8 had type 2, type 1, or another type of diabetes, respectively. Mean body mass index was 30 ± 6 kg/m 2 , and mean EAT volume 96 ± 36 cm 3 . Myocardial ischemia was detected in 32 patients (11.7%). EAT volume was positively correlated with age, body mass index and triglyceridemia, but negatively correlated with HbA1c, HDL- and LDL-cholesterol levels. Furthermore, EAT volume was lower in people with retinopathy, but higher in men, in current smokers, in patients with nephropathy, those with a CAC score > 100 Agatston units, and finally in individuals with myocardial ischemia (110 ± 37 cm 3 vs 94 ± 37 cm 3 in those without myocardial ischemia, p < 0.05). The association between EAT volume and myocardial ischemia remained significant after adjustment for gender, diabetes duration, peripheral macrovascular disease and CAC score. We also found that area under the ROC curve analysis showed that EAT volume (AROC: 0.771 [95% confidence interval 0.683–0.858]) did not provide improved discrimination of myocardial ischemia over the following classic factors: gender, diabetes duration, peripheral macrovascular disease, retinopathy, nephropathy, smoking, atherogenic dyslipidemia, and CAC score (AROC 0.773 [0.683–0.862]). Conclusions EAT may play a role in coronary atherosclerosis and coronary circulation in patients with diabetes. However, considering EAT volume is not a better marker for discriminating the risk of asymptomatic myocardial ischemia than classic clinical data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cosson et al. (2021) conducted a cross-sectional in Asymptomatic diabetes (n=274). Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) volume vs. Classic risk factors and CAC score was evaluated on Discrimination of myocardial ischemia (Area under the ROC curve) (AROC 0.771, 95% CI 0.683-0.858). Epicardial adipose tissue volume was higher in asymptomatic patients with diabetes and myocardial ischemia but did not improve discrimination of ischemia over classic risk factors and CAC score (AROC 0.771 vs 0.773).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: