Myocardial adipose deposition and the development of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Aims It has been proposed that an increase of myocardial adiposity is related to left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction. The specific roles of myocardial steatosis including epicardial fat and intramyocardial fat for diastolic function are unknown in those patients suffering heart failure (HF)...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European journal of heart failure 2020-03, Vol.22 (3), p.445-454
Main Authors: Wu, Cho‐Kai, Lee, Jen‐Kuang, Hsu, Jung‐Chi, Su, Mao‐Yuan M., Wu, Yi‐Fan, Lin, Ting‐Tse, Lan, Chen‐Wei, Hwang, Juey‐Jen, Lin, Lian‐Yu
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adipocytes
Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging
Diastole
Diastolic dysfunction
Female
Heart failure
Heart Failure - diagnostic imaging
Humans
Male
Myocardial steatosis
Myocardium
Stroke Volume
Ventricular Dysfunction, Left - diagnostic imaging
Women
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Aims It has been proposed that an increase of myocardial adiposity is related to left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction. The specific roles of myocardial steatosis including epicardial fat and intramyocardial fat for diastolic function are unknown in those patients suffering heart failure (HF) with reduced (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). This study aims to determine the complex relationship between myocardial adiposity in patients with HFrEF or HFpEF. Methods and results Using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI), myocardial steatosis was measured in 305 subjects (34 patients with HFrEF, 163 with HFpEF, and 108 non‐HF controls). We also evaluated cardiac structure and diastolic and systolic function by echocardiography and CMRI. Patients with HFpEF had significantly more intramyocardial fat than HFrEF patients or non‐HF controls [intramyocardial fat content (%), 1.56 (1.26, 1.89) vs. 0.75 (0.50, 0.87) and 1.0 (0.79, 1.15), P 
ISSN:1388-9842
1879-0844
DOI:10.1002/ejhf.1617