4.2 Article

Metabolically healthy obesity and risk of leukoaraiosis; a population based cross-sectional study

Journal

ENDOCRINE JOURNAL
Volume 65, Issue 6, Pages 669-675

Publisher

JAPAN ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1507/endocrj.EJ18-0023

Keywords

Obesity; Stroke; Cerebral white matter; Metabolic syndrome; Epidemiology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Metabolically healthy obese (MHO) individual is known to be defended from the metabolic complications of obesity. Leukoaraiosis, which is commonly detected on brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), is now recognized as a risk of stroke, dementia and death. However, the association between MHO and the prevalence of leukoaraiosis is unclear. In this cross-sectional study of 796 participants who received a medical examination program, we investigated the association between MHO and the prevalence of leukoaraiosis. We used common clinical markers for definition of metabolic healthy status: blood pressure, fasting plasma glucose, triglycerides and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations. Obesity was defined by body mass index >= 25.0 kg/m(2). We diagnosed leukoaraiosis by fluid-attenuated inversion recovery without hypointensity on T1-weighted images or the presence of a hyperintensity on T2-weighted images. The crude prevalence proportion of leukoaraiosis was 44.5% (case/n = 171/384) in metabolically healthy nonobese (MHNO) individual, 46.3% (44/95) in MHO individual, 62.3% (114/183) in metabolically unhealthy nonobese (MUNO) individual or 56.6% (77/136) in MUO individual. The odds ratios of prevalence of leukoaraiosis were 1.19 (95% CI 0.74-1.90, p = 0.471) for MHO, 1.79 (1.22-2.62, p = 0.003) for MUNO and 1.56 (1.03-2.37, p = 0.037) for MUO individuals after adjusting for sex, age, smoking statues, habit of exercise and alcohol, compared with MHNO individual. We revealed that MHO individuals were not related with the higher risk of leukoaraiosis, whereas MUNO and MUO individuals were.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available