Key result
Metabolic syndrome linked to ~28% higher visceral fat volume alongside greater subcutaneous and total fat.
Why the study?
Abdominal obesity contributes to metabolic syndrome with distinct risk profiles for visceral and subcutaneous adipose tissues, prompting evaluation of these fat compartment volumes in affected versus unaffected patients.
Does CT-derived abdominal fat volume estimation better predict the risk of metabolic syndrome compared to BMI?
Cross-Sectional (n=112)
No
Does CT-derived abdominal fat volume estimation better predict the risk of metabolic syndrome compared to BMI?
Absolute Event Rate: 681.92% vs 531.97%
p-value: p=0.001
CT-derived abdominal fat volume estimation is a superior predictor of metabolic syndrome compared to conventional BMI assessment.
Abdominal fat volumes may differ by metabolic syndrome status; leaves open whether compartment-specific measures improve risk stratification.
Purpose Abdominal obesity plays a significant role in the development of metabolic syndrome, with individual metabolic risk profiles for visceral and subcutaneous adipose tissues. This study aimed to calculate and correlate the subcutaneous, visceral, and total fat compartment volume in metabolic and non-metabolic syndrome patients. Material and methods This was a cross-sectional study conducted on 112 patients categorized into Group A (with metabolic syndrome) and Group B (without metabolic syndrome). They were subjected to computed tomography (CT) study of the abdomen using a 128-slice MDCT scanner. Body mass index (BMI), visceral fat volume (VFV), subcutaneous fat volume (SFV), and total fat volume (TFV) were calculated and correlated with biochemical evidence of metabolic syndrome. Results The mean age of patients in Group A was 60.91 ± 12.23 years as compared to Group B, which was 50.12 ± 16.30 years. Overall, a male predominance was observed, i.e. 69 cases (61.6%). BMI was proven to be an inaccurate risk predictor. However, mean VFV, SFV, and TFV was statistically higher in patients with metabolic syndrome (p = 0.001), with visceral fat volume predicting a higher risk in females (p = 0.026). Conclusions Abdominal CT is a commonly performed yet unexplored tool for the risk assessment of metabolic syndrome. Through the results obtained in this study, we have proven the need for calculating SFV, VFV, and TFV as predictors of metabolic syndrome in comparison to the conventional practice of BMI assessment. The radiologist can thus work with the clinician to effectively detect and treat this health condition.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
G.C et al. (2023) conducted a cross-sectional in Metabolic syndrome (n=112). Metabolic syndrome vs. Without metabolic syndrome was evaluated on Visceral fat volume (VFV) in cc (p=0.001). Patients with metabolic syndrome had significantly higher mean visceral fat volume (681.92 vs 531.97 cc), subcutaneous fat volume, and total fat volume compared to those without (p=0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: