Key result
High epicardial fat volume is linked to ~2.1-fold higher long-term MACE risk.
Why the study?
Epicardial adipose tissue is associated with CAD and adverse outcomes, but its prognostic relevance across cardiovascular risk scores remains uncertain.
Does high epicardial fat volume predict major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with suspected coronary artery disease?
Cohort (n=361)
No
Does high epicardial fat volume predict major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with suspected coronary artery disease?
Epicardial fat volume adds incremental prognostic value for predicting long-term major adverse cardiovascular events beyond standard clinical risk scores and anatomical/functional imaging in suspected CAD.
EFV may aid MACE risk stratification beyond standard markers in suspected CAD; extends observational data but leaves open prospective validation.
Background: Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) is associated with coronary artery disease (CAD) and adverse cardiovascular outcomes; however, its prognostic relevance across different cardiovascular risk scores remains uncertain. This study evaluated the long-term prognostic significance of EAT, coronary anatomical findings, and functional ischemia in patients with suspected CAD stratified by Framingham risk score (FRS) categories. Methods: A consecutive retrospective cohort of 361 symptomatic patients who underwent both single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT/CT MPI) and coronary angiography (CAG) or coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) at baseline was analyzed. Epicardial fat volume (EFV) and coronary artery calcium score (CACS) were quantified from integrated computed tomography (CT) with SPECT/CT. Ischemia burden was defined as ≥5% ischemic myocardium on MPI, and obstructive CAD as ≥50% stenosis. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were recorded during follow-up. Results: Over a median follow-up of 4.6 years, 54 patients (15%) experienced MACE. In the multivariable analysis, EFV [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) =2.09; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08-4.05; P=0.029], CACS (aHR =2.58; 95% CI: 1.39-4.80; P=0.003), and obstructive CAD (aHR =3.07; 95% CI: 1.59-5.90; P<0.001) were independently associated with MACE, while ischemia burden showed borderline significance (aHR =2.27; 95% CI: 0.94-5.49; P=0.069). EFV improved risk discrimination over FRS, CACS, obstructive CAD, and ischemia burden (all P<0.05). In the stratified analyses, CACS (aHR =2.88; P=0.017) and obstructive CAD (aHR =3.69; P=0.005) predicted MACE in low-to-intermediate FRS patients, whereas EFV (aHR =3.13; P=0.020) and ischemia burden (aHR =4.67; P=0.005) were only associated with MACE in high-risk FRS patients. EFV was significantly associated with MACE in patients with diabetes (aHR =6.61; P=0.010), but not in those without diabetes (aHR =1.45; P=0.359), with ischemia showing a similar pattern. Conclusions: EFV independently predicted long-term MACE and improved prognostic discrimination beyond clinical risk, anatomical imaging, and functional ischemia. Prognostic determinants varied by cardiovascular risk level, with anatomical markers being more informative in lower-risk patients, while EFV and functional ischemia were more informative in high-risk and diabetic patients. These findings support a risk-adapted strategy for the use of quantitative imaging biomarkers in patients with suspected CAD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Suspected coronary artery disease (n=361). High epicardial fat volume (EFV > 170.15 cm³) vs. Low epicardial fat volume (EFV ≤ 170.15 cm³) was evaluated on Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (aHR 2.09, 95% CI 1.08-4.05, p=0.029). High epicardial fat volume was independently associated with an increased risk of long-term major adverse cardiovascular events (aHR 2.09) and improved risk discrimination over clinical and imaging markers.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: