Key result
Higher METS-VF is linked to ~51% higher odds of coronary artery calcification.
Why the study?
Metabolic Score for Visceral Fat (METS-VF) is a novel indicator for estimating intra-abdominal fat, but its connection with coronary artery calcification (CAC) remains uncharted.
Does the Metabolic Score for Visceral Fat (METS-VF) assessment improve the estimation of coronary artery calcification presence and severity compared to traditional anthropometric indices in asymptomatic adults?
Cross-Sectional (n=1,217)
No
Does the Metabolic Score for Visceral Fat (METS-VF) assessment improve the estimation of coronary artery calcification presence and severity compared to traditional anthropometric indices in asymptomatic adults?
Odds Ratio: 1.506 (95% CI 1.181–1.921)
p-value: p=0.001
METS-VF is a strong, independent predictor of both the presence and severity of coronary artery calcification, outperforming traditional anthropometric indices in cardiovascular risk stratification for asymptomatic individuals.
METS-VF may aid CAC stratification in checkups; leaves open prospective outcome validation versus standard indices.
Background: Metabolic Score for Visceral Fat (METS-VF) is a novel indicator for estimating intra-abdominal fat, yet its connection with coronary artery calcification (CAC) remains uncharted. Our research aims to explore the novel METS-VF indicator’s link to CAC while comparing its performance against relevant anthropometric indices. Methods: This study enrolled participants who underwent health checkups and computed tomography scans for categorizing severity of CAC using the coronary artery calcium score. The METS-VF was calculated and compared with anthropometric indices in estimating the presence of CAC and different CAC severity using receiver operating characteristic curves. Results: Overall, 1217 participants (mean age 50.7 ± 9.9, 53.8% male) were included. METS-VF (odds ratio [OR], 1.506; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.181–1.921; p = 0.001) was positively associated with the presence of CAC, even after accounting for cardiometabolic factors. Notably, METS-VF was positively associated with mild (OR, 1.450; 95% CI, 1.115–1.886; p = 0.006), moderate (OR, 1.865; 95% CI, 1.137–3.062; p = 0.014), and severe (OR, 2.316; 95% CI, 1.090–4.923; p = 0.029) CAC. Moreover, METS-VF yielded the highest area under curve (AUC) value in the estimation of the CAC presence (AUC = 0.710), mild (AUC = 0.682), moderate (AUC = 0.757), and severe (AUC = 0.807) CAC when compared with body mass index, waist circumference, visceral adiposity index, triglyceride–glucose index, and metabolic score for insulin resistance. The optimal METS-VF cut-off value was 6.4 for predicting CAC. Conclusions: METS-VF emerged as a strong independent marker for detecting CAC presence across mild, moderate, and severe CAC categories, outperforming major anthropometric indices in accurately estimating the presence of CAC and different severity of CAC.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huang et al. (2024) conducted a cross-sectional in Coronary artery calcification (CAC) (n=1,217). Metabolic Score for Visceral Fat (METS-VF) was evaluated on Presence of coronary artery calcification (CACS > 0) (OR 1.506, 95% CI 1.181-1.921, p=0.001). Higher Metabolic Score for Visceral Fat (METS-VF) was independently associated with an increased presence of coronary artery calcification (OR 1.506) after adjusting for cardiometabolic factors.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: