Why the study?
Does echocardiographic epicardial fat thickness predict short term clinical outcome in patients with acute coronary syndrome who underwent successful coronary stenting?
Does echocardiographic epicardial fat thickness predict short term clinical outcome in patients with acute coronary syndrome who underwent successful coronary stenting?
This study hypothesizes that echocardiographic epicardial fat thickness can predict short-term prognosis in patients with acute coronary syndrome following successful coronary stenting.
Hypothesis-generating for epicardial fat thickness in post-stent ACS prognosis; leaves open clinical utility pending prospective validation.
Introduction Metabolic syndrome is related to multiple cardiovascular risk factors. Visceral obesity seems to play a key role in the development of all features of metabolic syndrome. Hence, the detection of visceral adipose tissue, fat deposited around the internal organs, might be important for the risk stratification of metabolic syndrome. Several methods are applied as surrogates for estimation of visceral adipose tissue. Epicardial adipose tissue is a visceral fat deposited around the heart, particularly around subepicardial coronary vessels. It may act as an endocrine organ given the production of a comparable pattern of adipocytokines and has been implicated in the development of coronary atherosclerosis. Recent reports have shown that epicardial adipose tissue expresses numerous genes for cytokines and proteins associated with atherosclerosis. Previously, we proposed and validated that epicardial fat thickness was significantly correlated with the severity of coronary artery diseases in patients with known coronary artery disease. We hypothesized that the short term prognosis after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) was related with epicardial fat thickeness. To test this hypothesis, we compared epicardial fat thickness with short term clinical outcome between patients who underwent successful coronary stenting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: