Why the study?
Visceral and ectopic fat accumulation might impact atherosclerotic calcification of abdominal arteries, but the pattern of calcification of the abdominal aorta and its branches is not fully investigated.
Is visceral and ectopic fat accumulation associated with calcification of the abdominal aorta and its branches?
Is visceral and ectopic fat accumulation associated with calcification of the abdominal aorta and its branches?
Visceral fat volume is more strongly associated with calcification of abdominopelvic arteries than ectopic fat deposits.
Should not yet change practice regarding cardiovascular risk stratification; leaves open whether targeting visceral adip.
Visceral and ectopic fat accumulation might have an impact on the atherosclerotic calcification of abdominal arteries. The pattern of calcification of the abdominal aorta and its branches is not fully investigated. We retrospectively analyzed the abdominopelvic MSCT images and calculated calcification volumes of the abdominal aorta, celiac trunk, superior and inferior mesenteric arteries, and both common and external iliac arteries. On the same MSCT scans, a visceral fat volume and ectopic fat deposits (liver-to-spleen ratio (L/S) and pancreas-to-spleen (P/S) ratio) were also measured. The results showed that calcifications of the abdominal aorta and its branches were associated with visceral fat volume, less strongly associated with L/S, and not associated with the P/S ratio. The abdominal aorta, the common iliac and external iliac arteries were more calcified arteries compared to the celiac trunk and superior and mesenterial arteries. In conclusion, visceral fat has a stronger effect on abdominopelvic arteries' calcification than ectopic fat. Visceral aortic branches are generally less calcified than iliac arteries.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ordulj et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: