Why the study?
A uniform definition distinguishing metabolically healthy obesity from metabolically unhealthy obesity is lacking, and the study aimed to further define these phenotypes using epicardial fat tissue and hepatic indices.
Does epicardial fat tissue thickness differ between metabolically healthy and unhealthy obesity in adults with visceral obesity?
Does epicardial fat tissue thickness differ between metabolically healthy and unhealthy obesity in adults with visceral obesity?
Epicardial fat tissue thickness is elevated in metabolically unhealthy obesity but also in nearly half of metabolically healthy obesity patients, suggesting the current MHO/MUO classification may underestimate cardiovascular risk in MHO.
BACKGROUND: A uniform definition distinguishing metabolically healthy obesity (MHO) from metabolically unhealthy obesity (MUO) is lacking. MUO is characterized by higher liver and visceral fat than MHO. Epicardial fat tissue (EFT) is an index of cardiac adiposity strongly associated with risk of cardiovascular events. This study aimed to further define the MHO/MUO status by evaluating EFT and hepatic steatosis/fibrosis indices in adults presenting visceral obesity. METHODS: In this monocentric, observational study, 56 patients (48 females; 43.8±13.1 years) were recruited. Clinical characteristics, anthropometric measurements, and metabolic parameters were evaluated. Hepatic fibrosis and steatosis were assessed by Fibroscan (502Touch, Echosense). EFT thickness was assessed by transthoracic echocardiography (GE Vivid E95 system). EFT thickness values of 9.5 mm in men and 7.5 mm in women were used as predictors of the metabolic syndrome (MetS). RESULTS: Patients with MUO had significantly higher steatosis/fibrosis indices and EFT values than the MHO group (P<0.001). EFT values above the cut-off were found in 82.1% of MUO, but also in 42.9% of MHO. At ROC analysis, the specificity and sensitivity of the EFT cut-off point to predict MUO phenotype combined with hypertension, 60-min post load plasma glucose, and adiponectin, were 98.6% and 92.0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: As EFT thickness values above the predictive threshold for MetS were found in about half of MHO, the MHO/MUO classification may not correctly identify the cardiovascular risk of MHO. Further clinical evidence is needed to confirm EFT thickness as potential additional marker for MHO/MUO phenotypic differentiation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alteriis et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: