Why the study?
Although associated with traditional cardiovascular risk factors, it remains unclear whether obesity alone is associated with coronary artery disease.
Is obesity independently associated with obstructive coronary artery disease defined by CCTA?
Is obesity independently associated with obstructive coronary artery disease defined by CCTA?
Obesity alone is associated with higher coronary calcium scores but is not an independent predictor of obstructive CAD on CCTA.
Obesity not independently linked to obstructive CAD on CCTA; leaves open whether higher calcium scores warrant adjusted risk assessment in obese patients.
Background: Although associated with traditional cardiovascular risk factors, it is unclear whether obesity alone is associated with coronary artery disease (CAD). Objective: To investigate the role of obesity as a risk factor for CAD, defined by coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). Methods: This study retrospectively included 1,814 patients referred for CCTA in a hospital in São Paulo, from August 2010 to July 2012. CAD was identified by coronary calcium score and presence of coronary stenosis > 50%. Images were analyzed by two specialists, and the coronary findings were compared between obese and non-obese groups. A multivariate analysis model was used to assess obesity as an independent variable for the occurrence of obstructive CAD. Results: Among the study population, mean age was 58.5 +/- 11.5 years, 22.8% were obese (BMI = 30 kg/m2) and 66.3% were male. The prevalence of obstructive CAD was 18.4% in both groups. Obese patients had higher median calcium score compared to non-obese subjects (14.7 vs. 1.4, respectively, p = 0.019). In the multivariate analysis, obesity was not an independent factor for obstructive CAD (coefficient = -0.035, p = 0.102). Conclusion: Although no differences were observed in the prevalence of obstructive CAD between obese and non-obese individuals, coronary calcium scores were significantly in lower the latter group.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pereira et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: