Out of 105 patients,
46 were male and 59 female,
with mean age of 58 years (from 22 to 78).
In 45 patients (42,9%) there was no CAD,
and 60 patients (57,1%) had some type of CAD with 24 patients (22,9% of study group) had mild stenosis ,
20 patients (19%) had modetate stenosis and 16 patients (15,2%) had severe stenosis .
LAD was the most affected artery,
which showed some type of stenosis in 50,5% of cases.
In 22,9% patients there was stenosis of ACX,
and in 19% on RCA.
Mean EFV was 117,92 ± 49 (slightly higher than in other reported studies -6,7),
with minimum value of 35,82 and maximum of 285,40.
As for the pericoronary fat volume,
mean value around LM/LAD (LADV) was 14,99 ± 7,85 (minimum 3,3 and maximum 36,15),
mean value around ACX (ACXV) was 5,25 ± 3,43 (minimum 0,88 and maximum 21,68) and mean value around RCA (RCAV) was 13,52 ± 5,35 (minimum 4,52 and maximum 29,78).
Values of EFV and PCFV were higher in patients with stenosis compared to those without stenosis,
and the difference was statistically significant (p<0,05).
This is consistent with some of previously conducted studies(6-9),
and differ from other(10-12) mostly conducted on echocardiography.
Our results also showed positive correlation between EFV and PCFV and severity of stenosis.
At the level of 95% of statistical significance (p<0,05) Spearman’s correlation coefficient was higher for PCFV,
with values of 0,621 for LAD stenosis,
0,362 for ACX stenosis,
and 0,513 for RCA stenosis.
All these values considered to be in the group of moderate correlation,
with the highest value regarding LAD.
Spearman’s correlation values for EFV are also in the group of moderate correlation,
with the highest values regarding LAD stenosis – 0,475,
0,347 for CX stenosis and 0,429 for RCA stenosis.
Other performed studies showed similar results concerning EFV and its relation to severity of stenosis(7,
others found no relation between EFV with severity of stenosis (16),
while other studies confirmed correlation between EFV and presence,
but not severity of stenosis (9).
Diversity of results between conducted studies may be explained by the difference in investigated patients (different cardiovascular risk profile,
intermediate or high risk population) and use of different imaging techniques and parameters.
With the presence of multiple correlations,
we performed logistic regression,
which showed that overall EFV was more useful predictor for CAD in general,