Why the study?
The study aimed to evaluate the relationship between carotid artery intima-media thickness, epicardial fat thickness, and heart-type fatty acid binding protein levels in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome.
Are hFABP levels, CMIT, and EFT increased in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome compared to controls?
Are hFABP levels, CMIT, and EFT increased in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome compared to controls?
Epicardial fat thickness and hFABP levels are elevated in patients with OSAS and may serve as predictive markers for cardiovascular risk in this population.
May support hFABP and EFT as CV risk markers in OSAS; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical use.
INTRODUCTION: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the relationship between carotid artery intima-media thickness, epicardial fat thickness measurement and the levels of heart-type fatty acid binding protein (hFABP) in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-nine newly diagnosed OSAS patients and fifty non-OSAS control subjects were enrolled in this study. In both groups, demographic data such as age, sex, body mass index (BMI) were recorded and carotid intima-media thickness (CMIT) and epicardial fat thickness (EFT) were measured. hFABP levels were determined using the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method according to the manufacturer's protocols. RESULT: Patients with OSAS 67% male, 33% female gender is determined. The mean age of control group was 43.28 ± 12.12 years and group of OSAS was 47.85 ± 11.55 years (p= 0.026). In OSAS group; 38 mild OSAS (38.38%), 23 moderate OSAS (23.23%) and 38 severe OSAS (38.38%) patients were identified. In OSAS patients, average of apnea hypopnea index (AHI) was 29.83/hours. A positive correlation was observed between BMI with EFT and CMIT (p< 0.05). hFABP levels in OSAS group average was 2.65 ± 2.1 ng/mL and in control group average was 1.62 ± 0.90 ng/mL and this was statistically significant (p= 0.002). EFT, in the control group average was 5.3 ± 2.04 mm, while the average was 4.3 ± 1.79 mm in the OSAS group (p= 0.019). The correlation was observed between the CMIT and EFT (p< 0.001). There was no significant difference in BMI and gender between OSAS and control groups. No accompanying cardiovascular disease was detected in patients with OSAS. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests EFT and hFABP can be used as a predictive value in determining cardiovascular risk in OSAS patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Azar et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: