4.5 Article

Ultrasound measurement of intraabdominal fat thickness as a predictor of insulin resistance and low HDL cholesterol in Asians

期刊

NUTRITION
卷 55-56, 期 -, 页码 99-103

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2018.04.003

关键词

Ultrasound; Preperitoneal fat thickness; Subcutaneous fat thickness; Insulin resistance; Low HDL cholesterol

资金

  1. Singapore Institute for Clinical Sciences, A*Star

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Insulin resistance (IR) is important in the pathogenesis of diabetes, the prevalence of which has become a major public health threat in Asia. The aim of this study was to use ultrasound measurements of abdominal fat thickness to predict IR and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels among Singaporean adults. Methods: A total of 399 healthy Singaporeans (mean age 36.7 +/- 14.3 y; 43.4% men) took part in this study. Preperitoneal fat thickness (PFT) and subcutaneous fat thickness (SFT) were determined by ultrasound. Result: We found that both PFT and SFT had significant positive correlations (P < 0.05) with fasting insulin concentration, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, triacylglycerol (TG), and blood pressure, and negatively correlated to serum HDL-C in all participants. Separating men and women, PFT was an independent determinant of IR and low HDL-C only in men. On receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis, PFT >= 1.2 cm was the optimal cutoff value to identify IR and low HDL-C in men. On the other hand, SFT was the determinant of IR, elevated TG, and low HDL-C only in women. An SFT of 1.1 cm was the optimal cutoff value to define IR, elevated TG, and low HDL-C in women. Conclusions: Results of this study suggested that ultrasound measurements of PFT and SET could provide simple and useful indices of IR and lipid disorders for healthy Singaporean men and women. They might have the diagnostic values for predicting cardiovascular risks in this population. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据