Why the study?
Is echocardiographic epicardial adipose tissue thickness associated with coronary artery disease and serum adiponectin in patients with angina?
Is echocardiographic epicardial adipose tissue thickness associated with coronary artery disease and serum adiponectin in patients with angina?
Echocardiographic epicardial adipose tissue thickness is an independent predictor of obstructive coronary artery disease and correlates with lower serum adiponectin levels.
EAT thickness may aid noninvasive CAD assessment in angina; leaves open incremental value and causality in prospective studies.
BACKGROUND: It is still unknown whether increased cardiac adiposity is related to the risk factors of coronary artery disease (CAD). We measured epicaridal adopose tissue (EAT) and mediastinal adipose tissue (MAT) using echocardiography and examined their correlations with CAD and serum adiponectin. METHODS: One hundred fifty three patients who underwent elective coronary angiography for chest pain were measured cardiac adiposity by transthoracic echocardiography. The correlations of cardiac adipose tissue with the presence and severity of CAD and the serum adiponectin level were examined. RESULTS: EAT was thicker in patients with CAD (1.8+/-1.4 vs. 3.8+/-1.9 mm, p<0.001), but MAT was not different according to the presence of CAD (2.9+/-2.8 vs. 3.5+/-2.5 mm, p=0.121). EAT showed a significant positive correlation with age (r=0.225, p=0.005), homocystein (r=0.289, p=0.001), fasting glucose (r=0.167, p=0.042), and fibrinogen (r=0.218, p=0.009), and a significant negative correlation with serum adiponectin (r=-0.194, p=0.016). EAT thickness (OR 11.53, 95% CI; 3.61-36.84, p<0.001) and low serum adiponectin (OR 2.88, 95% CI; 1.02-8.15, p=0.046) were independent predictors of obstructive CAD. However, MAT thickness was not associated with CAD. CONCLUSION: EAT was associated with the severity and risk factors of CAD and correlated with serum adiponectin level. In contrast with EAT, MAT was not associated with CAD and adiponectin.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yun et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: