Fat-Free Mass Index, Visceral Fat Level, and Muscle Mass Percentage Better Explain Deviations From the Expected Value of Aortic Pressure and Structural and Functional Arterial Properties Than Body Fat Indexes

• Published in: Frontiers in nutrition (Lausanne) 2022-04, Vol.9, p.856198-856198
• Main Authors: Gómez-García, Mariana, Torrado, Juan, Pereira, María, Bia, Daniel, Zócalo, Yanina
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: aortic pressure; arterial stiffness; bioelectrical impedance analysis; body composition assessment techniques; cardiovascular diagnosis; cardiovascular research; Nutrition
• ISSN: 2296-861X; 2296-861X
• DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2022.856198

Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)-derived indexes [e.g., fat (FMI) and fat-free mass indexes (FFMI), visceral fat level (VFL)] are used to characterize obesity as a cardiovascular risk factor (CRF). The BIA-derived index that better predicts arterial variability is still discussed. To determine: (1) the association of classical [weight, height, body mass index (BMI), basal metabolic rate (BMR)] and BIA-derived indexes, with arterial properties deviations from expected values (arterial z-scores); (2) maximum arterial variations attributable to BIA-derived indexes; (3) whether the composition of total body, trunk and/or limbs is most closely associated with arterial variations. Hemodynamic, structural, and functional parameters of different histological types of arteries were assessed ( = 538, 7-85 years). Classical and BIA-derived indexes [fat mass and percentage, FMI, VFL, muscle mass percentage (PMM), FFMI, and percentage] were measured (mono- and multi-segmental devices). Arterial z-scores were obtained using age-related equations derived from individuals not-exposed to CRFs ( = 1,688). First, regardless of the classical index considered, the associations with the arterial properties showed a specific hierarchy order: diameters and local stiffness > aortic and brachial blood pressure (BP) > regional stiffness. Second, all the associations of FMI and FFMI with z-scores were positive. Third, FFMI exceeded the association obtained with BMI and BMR, considering structural z-scores. In contrast, FMI did not exceed the association with z-scores achieved by BMI and BMR. Fourth, regardless of CRFs and classical indexes, arterial z-scores would be mainly explained by FFMI, VFL, and PMM. Fifth, regardless of the body-segment considered, the levels of association between FMI and z-scores did not exceed those found for classic and FFMI. Total fat mass and trunk indexes showed a greater strength of association with z-scores than the FMI of limbs. Sixth, compared to lower limb FFMI indexes, total and upper limbs FFMI showed higher levels of association with z-scores. FFMI (but not FMI) exceeded the strength of association seen between BMI or BMR and structural z-scores. Regardless of the body segment analyzed, the associations between FMI and z-scores did not exceed those found with classic and FFMI. Arterial z-scores could be independently explained by FFMI, VFL, and PMM.