July 27, 2011Journal of the American Society of EchocardiographyOpen Access

Pericardial Rather Than Epicardial Fat is a Cardiometabolic Risk Marker: An MRI vs Echo Study

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Why the study?

Does pericardial or epicardial fat measured by echocardiography and MRI better correlate with cardiometabolic risk factors in healthy subjects?

Population

49 healthy subjects, age range 25-68 years, body mass index 21-40 kg/m2

Design

Cross-sectional

Authors

RSRosa Sicari ASAnna Maria Sironi RPRoberta Petz

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Pericardial fat thickness by echocardiography may mark cardiometabolic risk; cross-sectional data leave open validation versus MRI or outcomes before clinical use.

Structured PICO

Does pericardial or epicardial fat measured by echocardiography and MRI better correlate with cardiometabolic risk factors in healthy subjects?

Population

49 healthy subjects, age range 25-68 years, body mass index 21-40 kg/m2

Intervention

Measurement of pericardial (PERI) and epicardial (EPI) fat depots using echocardiography and MRI

Outcome

Correlation between echocardiographic and MRI measurements of cardiac fat depots, and their association with cardiometabolic risk factorssurrogate

Pericardial fat, rather than epicardial fat, is a more reliable cardiometabolic risk marker and can be assessed by echocardiography.

Cite This Study

Sicari et al. (2011) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a70c5815671bbf00bc2c48a https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2011.06.013

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

July 27, 2011Journal of the American Society of EchocardiographyOpen Access

Pericardial Rather Than Epicardial Fat is a Cardiometabolic Risk Marker: An MRI vs Echo Study

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Why the study?

Does pericardial or epicardial fat measured by echocardiography and MRI better correlate with cardiometabolic risk factors in healthy subjects?

Population

49 healthy subjects, age range 25-68 years, body mass index 21-40 kg/m2

Design

Cross-sectional

Authors

RSRosa Sicari ASAnna Maria Sironi RPRoberta Petz

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Pericardial fat thickness by echocardiography may mark cardiometabolic risk; cross-sectional data leave open validation versus MRI or outcomes before clinical use.

Structured PICO

Does pericardial or epicardial fat measured by echocardiography and MRI better correlate with cardiometabolic risk factors in healthy subjects?

Population

49 healthy subjects, age range 25-68 years, body mass index 21-40 kg/m2

Intervention

Measurement of pericardial (PERI) and epicardial (EPI) fat depots using echocardiography and MRI

Outcome

Correlation between echocardiographic and MRI measurements of cardiac fat depots, and their association with cardiometabolic risk factorssurrogate

Pericardial fat, rather than epicardial fat, is a more reliable cardiometabolic risk marker and can be assessed by echocardiography.

Cite This Study

Sicari et al. (2011) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a70c5815671bbf00bc2c48a https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2011.06.013

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark