Expressão de Aterosclerose Sub-Clínica para Diferentes Factores de Risco Cardiovasculares em Populações Jovens

INTRODUCTION: Carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) is considered an early marker for atherosclerosis, but there are few studies on the expression of this marker in younger populations. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate cIMT in younge patients (aged 30-50 years) and its expression according to cardiovascular risk factors. METHODS: We analyzed individuals admitted for an invasive cardiac procedure. Normal cIMT was defined as < 0.90 mm, thickened as 0.90-1.50 mm and atherosclerotic plaque as > 1.50 mm. Lipid profile, anthropometric parameters, fasting blood glucose and estimated GFR were also determined. RESULTS: A total of 106 patients were included (59% male), with a mean age of 43 +/- 5 years, 36% with hypertension, 22% smokers, 32% with known hyperlipidemia, 16% with diabetes, 39% under statin therapy and 40% with metabolic syndrome (AHA/NHLBI definition). Mean cIMT was 0.69 +/- 0.26 mm, and was normal in 74% of the patients, thickened in 20% and with atherosclerotic plaques in 6%. cIMT correlated directly with age (r = 0.26, p = 0.007), log fasting glucose (r = 0.21, p = 0.04), and log triglycerides (r = 0.24, p = 0.017), and tended to correlate with the number of components of metabolic syndrome (r = 0.17, p = 0.08). However, on multivariate analysis, only age remained as an independent predictor (r = 0.29, p = 0.005). Diabetic patients had greater cIMT (0.81 +/- 0.22 vs. 0.67 +/- 0.26 mm, p = 0.039) and there was a trend for greater cIMT in those with metabolic syndrome (0.75 +/- 0.29 vs. 0.66 +/- 0.23 mm, p = 0.09). There were no differences for the other risk factors, A higher number of risk factors in a single patient showed a trend for increased cIMT (p = 0.083) CONCLUSIONS: Age is the only independent determinant of cIMT in a young population. Diabetic patients have greater cIMT and a trend was seen in those with metabolic syndrome, possibly influenced by its relation with diabetes, one of the components of the metabolic syndrome.

Upper Arm Measurements of Healthy Neonates Comparing Ultrasonography and Anthropometric Methods

Objective: To compare measurements of the upper arm cross-sectional areas (total arm area,arm muscle area, and arm fat area of healthy neonates) as calculated using anthropometry with the values obtained by ultrasonography. Materials and methods: This study was performed on 60 consecutively born healthy neonates: gestational age (mean6SD) 39.661.2 weeks, birth weight 3287.16307.7 g, 27 males (45%) and 33 females (55%). Mid-arm circumference and tricipital skinfold thickness measurements were taken on the left upper mid-arm according to the conventional anthropometric method to calculate total arm area, arm muscle area and arm fat area. The ultrasound evaluation was performed at the same arm location using a Toshiba sonolayer SSA-250AÒ, which allows the calculation of the total arm area, arm muscle area and arm fat area by the number of pixels enclosed in the plotted areas. Statistical analysis: whenever appropriate, parametric and non-parametric tests were used in order to compare measurements of paired samples and of groups of samples. Results: No significant differences between males and females were found in any evaluated measurements, estimated either by anthropometry or by ultrasound. Also the median of total arm area did not differ significantly with either method (P50.337). Although there is evidence of concordance of the total arm area measurements (r50.68, 95% CI: 0.55–0.77) the two methods of measurement differed for arm muscle area and arm fat area. The estimated median of measurements by ultrasound for arm muscle area were significantly lower than those estimated by the anthropometric method, which differed by as much as 111% (P,0.001). The estimated median ultrasound measurement of the arm fat was higher than the anthropometric arm fat area by as much as 31% (P,0.001). Conclusion: Compared with ultrasound measurements using skinfold measurements and mid-arm circumference without further correction may lead to overestimation of the cross-sectional area of muscle and underestimation of the cross-sectional fat area. The correlation between the two methods could be interpreted as an indication for further search of correction factors in the equations.