Why the study?
Does metabolic syndrome increase the risk of subclinical atherosclerosis and cardiac events in asymptomatic individuals undergoing CCTA?
Does metabolic syndrome increase the risk of subclinical atherosclerosis and cardiac events in asymptomatic individuals undergoing CCTA?
Metabolic syndrome is associated with a higher prevalence of subclinical atherosclerosis on CCTA and an increased risk of subsequent cardiac events in asymptomatic individuals.
BACKGROUND: Little is known about subclinical atherosclerosis on coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) in asymptomatic individuals with metabolic syndrome (MetS). METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed 5,213 asymptomatic individuals who underwent CCTA. A cardiac event was defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or coronary revascularization. Of the study participants, 2,042 (39.2%) had MetS. MetS was an independent predictor of significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in at least 1 coronary artery (odds ratio [OR]=1.992, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.623-2.445, P<0.001) and significant CAD in the left main (LM) or proximal left anterior descending (LAD) artery (OR=2.151, 95% CI=1.523-3.037, P<0.001). During the follow-up period (median 28.1 [interquartile range, 19.2-36.5] months), 111 individuals had 114 cardiac events. Individuals with MetS were significantly associated with more cardiac events than those without (RR [rate ratio]=1.67, 95% CI=1.15-2.43, P=0.007). In the MetS group, individuals with significant CAD had the majority of cardiac events (RR=64.33, 95% CI=29.17-141.88, P<0.001). Furthermore, in the MetS with significant CAD group, those with significant CAD in the LM or proximal LAD had more cardiac events (RR=2.63, 95% CI=1.51-4.59, P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: MetS was associated with subclinical atherosclerosis on CCTA with subsequent high risk for cardiac events. These findings suggest the importance of reducing unfavorable metabolic conditions in asymptomatic individuals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: