Breast arterial calcification and epicardial adipose tissue volume, but not density are independently associated with cardiovascular risk.

BACKGROUND: Mammographically detected breast arterial calcification (BAC) has been proposed as surrogate marker for coronary artery disease (CAD) in women. Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) and peri-coronary adipose tissue (PCAT) are inflammatory fat depots linked to atherogenesis. BAC has demonstrated association with inflammation, therefore we aimed to determine the association between BAC, EAT and PCAT. METHODS: Single-centre, retrospective, cross-sectional study of women with digital mammography and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). EAT and PCAT were quantitively assessed using semi-automated software. Patient demographics and cardiovascular risk factors were obtained from medical records and mammograms reviewed for BAC. Pre-test cardiovascular risk was determined with CAD Consortium Score. Chi-square, t-test and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group differences. Multivariable linear and logistic regression modelling was conducted to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: Among 153 patients (age 61, SD 11) included in this study, BAC was present in 37 (24%) patients. BAC-positive patients had higher EAT volume (EATv) (110.2 mL, SD 41 mL vs 94.4 mL, SD 41 mL, p = 0.02) but this association was not significant after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors (p = 0.26). BAC did not associate with EAT density or PCAT. BAC and EATv were strongly associated with cardiovascular risk and CAD independent of each other: CV risk (BAC OR 7.55 (3.26-18.49), p < 0.001, EATv OR 1.02 (1.01-1.03), p < 0.001), CAD presence (BAC OR 4.26 (1.39-13), p = 0.01; EATv OR 1.01 (1.0-1.03), p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: BAC and EATv are independent predictors of CV risk and CAD, but don't independently associate with each other, the relationship confounded by shared cardiovascular risk factors. BAC doesn't appear to associate with adipose tissue density and its presence may be cumulative result of long-term exposure to CV risk factors.

Ethnic differences in coronary anatomy, left ventricular mass and CT-derived fractional flow reserve.

BACKGROUND: Studies have observed higher incidence of cardiovascular mortality in South Asians (SA), and lower prevalence in East Asians (EA), compared with Caucasians. These observations are not entirely explained by ethnic differences in cardiovascular risk factors and mechanistic factors such as variations in cardiac anatomy and physiology may play a role. This study compared ethnic differences in CT-assessed left ventricular (LV) mass, coronary anatomy and non-invasive fractional flow reserve (FFRCT). METHODS: Three-hundred symptomatic patients (age 59 ± 7.9, male 51%) underwent clinically-mandated CT-coronary-angiography (CTA) were matched for age, gender, BMI and diabetes (100 each ethnicity). Assessment of coronary stenosis, luminal dimensions and vessel dominance was performed by independent observers. LV mass, coronary luminal volume and FFRCT were quantified by blinded core-laboratory. A sub-analysis was performed on patients (n = 187) with normal/minimal disease (0-25% stenosis). RESULTS: Stenosis severity was comparable across ethnic groups. EA demonstrated less left-dominant circulation (2%) compared with SA (8.2%) and Caucasians (10.1%). SA compared with EA and Caucasians demonstrated smallest indexed LV mass, coronary luminal volumes and dimensions. EA compared with Caucasians had comparable indexed LV mass, coronary luminal dimensions and highest luminal volumes. The latter was driven by higher prevalence of right-dominance including larger and longer right posterior left ventricular artery. FFRCT in the left anterior descending artery (LAD) was lowest in SA (0.87) compared with EA (0.89; P = 0.009) and Caucasians (0.89; P < 0.001), with no difference in other vessels. All observed differences were consistent in patients with minimal disease. CONCLUSION: This single-centre study identified significant ethnic differences in CT-assessed LV mass, coronary anatomy and LAD FFRCT. These hypotheses generating results may provide a mechanistic explanation for ethnic differences in cardiovascular outcomes and require validation in larger cohorts.