Key result
Pediatric overweight and obesity are linked to lower subendocardial viability ratios in girls versus boys.
Why the study?
The impact of overweight/obesity on subendocardial viability ratio and associated factors in children and adolescents was not well understood.
Does overweight/obesity alter subendocardial viability ratio (SEVR) in children and adolescents?
Cross-Sectional (n=789)
Does overweight/obesity alter subendocardial viability ratio (SEVR) in children and adolescents?
Absolute Event Rate: 1.34% vs 1.48%
p-value: p=.018
Excess weight in female children and adolescents is associated with reduced subendocardial viability ratio, indicating altered myocardial supply-workload balance.
May signal early supply-demand imbalance in obese youth; hypothesis-generating for SEVR in pediatric CV risk assessment.
Subendocardial viability ratio (SEVR) is a reliable index of myocardial supply-workload balance. This study sought to investigate whether overweight/obese children and adolescents have altered SEVR and to identify which are the associated factors. This cross-sectional study involved 789 individuals. Central haemodynamic was measured by radial applanation tonometry. Diastolic time was shorter (496 ± 122 vs 537 ± 140 ms, P = .014) and diastolic pressure-time index was lower (2681 ± 412 vs 2814 ± 423 mm Hg seconds, P = .024) in overweight/obese compared with eutrophic girls. SEVR was lower in girls than in boys (1.34 ± 0.39 vs 1.48 ± 0.41, P = .018) but only among overweight/obese. SEVR may be affected by small variations in the temporal determinants of cardiac cycle.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zaniqueli et al. (2018) conducted a cross-sectional in Overweight and obesity (n=789). Overweight/obesity vs. Eutrophic (normal weight) peers and boys was evaluated on Subendocardial viability ratio (SEVR) (p=.018). Overweight and obesity in children and adolescents were associated with a lower subendocardial viability ratio in girls compared to boys (1.34 vs 1.48, P=0.018).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: