4.4 Article

Prognostic Value of Fat Mass and Skeletal Muscle Mass Determined by Computed Tomography in Patients Who Underwent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 117, Issue 5, Pages 828-833

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.12.015

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Body composition (fat mass [FM] and skeletal muscle mass [SMM]) predicts clinical outcomes. In particular, loss of SMM (sarcopenia) is associated with frailty and mortality. There are no data on the prevalence and impact of FM and SMM in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The objective of this study is to determine body composition from pre-TAVI computed tomography (CT) and evaluate its association with clinical outcomes in patients who underwent TAW. A total of 460 patients (mean age 81 +/- 8 years, men: 51%) were included. Pre-TAVI CTs of the aorto-ilio-femoral axis were analyzed for FM and SMM cross-sectional area at the level of the third lumbar vertebrae (L3). Regression equations correlating cross-sectional area at L3 to total body FM and SMM were used to determine prevalence of sarcopenia, obesity, and sarcopenic obesity in patients (64%, 65%, and 46%, respectively). Most TAVI procedures were performed through a tranSfemoral approach (59%) using a balloon-expandable valve (94%). The 30-day and mid-term (median 12 months [interquartile range 6 to 27]) mortality rates were 6.1% and 29.6%, respectively. FM had no association with clinical outcomes, but sarcopenia predicted cumulative mortality (hazard ratio 1.55, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 2.36, p = 0.04). In conclusion, body composition analysis from pre-TAVI CT is feasible. Sarcopenia, obesity, and sarcopenic obesity are prevalent in the TAVI population, with sarcopenia predictive of cumulative mortality. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available