Key result
Low economic status is linked to higher pericardial fat volume independent of traditional risk factors.
Why the study?
Little data currently exist supporting the correlation of socioeconomic status to markers of subclinical coronary atherosclerosis.
Does low socioeconomic status correlate with increased coronary artery calcification and pericardial fat volume in patients with suspected coronary artery disease?
Cross-Sectional (n=186)
Does low socioeconomic status correlate with increased coronary artery calcification and pericardial fat volume in patients with suspected coronary artery disease?
Effect estimate: r = 0.37 (95% CI 7.3-30.4)
p-value: p=0.004
Low economic status is independently associated with higher pericardial fat volume, suggesting a link between socioeconomic disparities and subclinical cardiovascular risk.
Hypothesis-generating for socioeconomic disparities in pericardial fat; prospective studies needed before clinical implications.
BACKGROUND: Little data currently exist supporting the correlation of socioeconomic status (SES) to markers of subclinical coronary atherosclerosis. AIM: The main aim was to investigate the relationship of SES measured by economic status and educational level with coronary artery calcification (CAC) and pericardial fat volume (PFV) assessed by multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT). METHODS: A total of 220 consecutive patients with suspected coronary artery disease, who underwent 64-slice MDCT angiography for assessment of coronary atherosclerosis, were recruited between January 2014 and March 2015. Of these, 186 patients were enrolled in this cross sectional study. RESULTS: Low economic status patients showed higher PFV values; median (inter-quartile range [IQR] was 94 [50-140] cm3, p = 0.00001 and r = 0.37, compared to patients with high economic status, and this association persisted even after multiple logistic regression to conventional cardiac risk factors (p = 0.004, CI 7.3-30.4), while patients with low economic status reported a higher calcium score (but statistically non significant) (p = 0.12) compared to high economic status patients. Pa-tients with no formal education showed higher PFV (median [IQR] was 93 [48-140] cm3, p = 0.01) compared to patients with bachelor's degree (median [IQR] was 56 [28-92] cm3), but this association was attenuated after further adjustment for conventional cardiac risk factors (p = 0.1, CI -9.52-10.88), while CAC showed no significant correlation with educational level (p = 0.2, r = 0.117). CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic status, particularly economic status measure, reported a significant inverse relationship with PFV independent of conventional cardiac risk factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nafakhi et al. (2017) conducted a cross-sectional in Suspected coronary artery disease (n=186). Low socioeconomic status vs. High socioeconomic status was evaluated on Pericardial fat volume (PFV) and coronary artery calcification (CAC) (r = 0.37, 95% CI 7.3-30.4, p=0.004). Low economic status was associated with higher pericardial fat volume compared to high economic status, independent of conventional cardiac risk factors (p=0.004, CI 7.3-30.4).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: