Key result
Abdominal obesity in dogs is linked to ~7-fold greater odds of cardiovascular disease.
Why the study?
Are morphometric and CT-based measurements of abdominal obesity associated with clinical heart disease in dogs?
Case-Control (n=87)
No
Are morphometric and CT-based measurements of abdominal obesity associated with clinical heart disease in dogs?
Odds Ratio: 6.9 (95% CI 2.7–17.6)
p-value: p=<0.01
Abdominal obesity, rather than overall obesity, is associated with clinical heart disease in dogs, and morphometric indices like WIWDR and WTLR are useful for its detection.
May support abdominal obesity screening in dogs with CVD; hypothesis-generating from Level 5 data and needs prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: The relationship between overall obesity and fat distribution in dogs and the development of heart disease is unclear. In the present study we evaluated the association between overall obesity and fat distribution and clinical heart disease by morphometric and computed tomography (CT)-based measurements. Body condition score (BCS), modified body mass index (MBMI, kg/m2), waist-to-hock-to-stifle distance ratio (WHSDR), waist-to-ilium wing distance ratio (WIWDR), and waist-to-truncal length ratio (WTLR) were compared between dogs with (n = 44) and without (n = 43) heart disease using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Intra-abdominal fat (IAF) and subcutaneous fat (SQF) were measured in dogs with (n = 8) and without (n = 9) heart disease at the center of the fourth and fifth lumbar vertebrae by CT. RESULTS: BCS was similar between heart disease and healthy groups (3.6 ± 0.2 vs. 3.3 ± 0.1, P = 0.126). The following morphometric measurements were greater in the heart disease group compared with healthy canines: MBMI (65.0 ± 4.5 vs. 52.5 ± 3.7 kg/m2, respectively, P = 0.035); WIWDR (4.1 ± 0.1 vs. 3.1 ± 0.1, P < 0.01); and WTLR (1.25 ± 0.04 vs. 1.05 ± 0.04, P < 0.01). However, there was no significant difference in WHSDR (3.6 ± 0.1 vs. 3.7 ± 0.2, P = 0.875). Interestingly, IAF was significantly increased in dogs with heart disease compared with healthy dogs (23.5 ± 1.5% vs. 19.4 ± 1.2%, P = 0.039) whereas SQF was similar between two groups (35.5 ± 2.7% vs. 38.6 ± 3.5%, P = 0.496). Of the five morphometric indices studied, WIWDR and WTLR provided acceptable discrimination for diagnosing heart disease in dogs, with areas under the ROC curve of 0.778 (95% confidence interval [CI]:0.683-0.874) and 0.727 (95% CI:0.619-0.835), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that abdominal obesity, rather than overall obesity, is associated with heart disease in dogs. Measurements of both WIWDR and WTLR are particular useful for detection of an abdominal obesity in dogs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thengchaisri et al. (2014) conducted a case-control in Heart disease in dogs (n=87). Abdominal obesity (waist-to-ilium wing distance ratio > 3.6) vs. Dogs without abdominal obesity (WIWDR ≤ 3.6) was evaluated on Presence of cardiovascular disease (OR 6.9, 95% CI 2.7-17.6, p=<0.01). Abdominal obesity in dogs, indicated by a waist-to-ilium wing distance ratio greater than 3.6, is associated with a 6.9-fold increased odds of having cardiovascular disease.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: