Subclinical cardiac dysfunction is highly prevalent in obese patients without known cardiovascular disease and is independently associated with autonomic dysfunction and male gender, rather than traditional risk factors.
Subclinical dysfunction appears common in obesity and tied to autonomic factors; leaves open validation and targeted interventions.
AIMS: Obesity doubles the lifetime risk of developing heart failure. Current knowledge on the role of obesity in causing cardiac dysfunction is insufficient for optimal risk stratification. The aim of this study was first to estimate the prevalence of subclinical cardiac dysfunction in obesity patients and second to investigate the underlying pathophysiology. METHODS AND RESULTS: ). Echocardiography was performed, blood samples were collected, and a Holter monitor was affixed. Fifty-nine obesity patients [48 (42-50) years, 70% female] showed subclinical cardiac dysfunction: 57 patients had decreased global longitudinal strain (GLS), and two patients with normal GLS had either diastolic dysfunction or increased brain natriuretic peptide (BNP). Only one non-obese control had diastolic dysfunction, and none had another sign of cardiac dysfunction. Multivariable logistic analysis identified male gender and standard deviation of all NN intervals (SDNN) index, which is a measure of autonomic dysfunction, as independent significant risk factors for subclinical cardiac dysfunction in obesity patients. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high prevalence (61%) of subclinical cardiac dysfunction in obesity patients without known cardiovascular disease, which appeared to be best identified by GLS. Subclinical cardiac dysfunction in obesity was linked to autonomic dysfunction and male gender, and not to the presence of traditional cardiac risk factors, increased C-reactive protein, increased BNP, increased high-sensitivity troponin I, or increased left ventricular mass.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Snelder et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: