Why the study?
Does adiposity contribute to age-associated changes in left ventricular structure and diastolic function in healthy men?
Does adiposity contribute to age-associated changes in left ventricular structure and diastolic function in healthy men?
Increasing adiposity significantly contributes to the left ventricular remodeling and reduced diastolic function typically associated with aging in healthy men.
Adiposity may mediate age-related LV remodeling in healthy men; hypothesis-generating and requires longitudinal studies before clinical consideration.
We sought to examine the influence of adiposity in age-associated changes in the left ventricle (LV) in a cohort of 113 healthy men, aged 20-79 yr, by measuring LV structure and diastolic function (echocardiography), whole body composition, and regional adiposity (dual energy x-ray absorptiometry). Aging was associated with increased levels of adiposity, greater wall thickness to chamber radius ratio, LV concentric remodeling, and reduced LV diastolic function (all P < 0.05). Bivariate correlation analysis showed that mean LV wall thickness, a concentric LV morphology, and diastolic function were related to adiposity (r = -0.63 to 0.51; all P < 0.05). The relation between age and both mean LV wall thickness and concentric remodeling was reduced after controlling for percentage total body fat (by 38% and 54%, respectively), percentage abdominal fat (by 42% and 62%), and the abdominal/thigh fat ratio (by 35% and 46%). The diastolic function-age relation was reduced after controlling for percentage total body fat (by 35%), percentage abdominal fat (by 39%), and the abdominal/thigh fat ratio (by 29%). There were no apparent differences in the contribution of percentage total body fat, percentage abdominal fat, or abdominal/thigh fat to the association between age and LV structure/diastolic function. We conclude that increasing adiposity contributes to the LV remodeling/reduced diastolic function that occurs with aging in healthy men.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gates et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: