AIM: To compare the predictive value of three methods of epicardial fat (EF) assessment for presence of significant @entity453 ( @entity453 ) [i.e., epicardial fat volume (EFV), EFV indexed with body surface area (EFV/BSA) and EFV indexed with body mass index (EFV/BMI)]. METHODS: The study was performed on 170 @entity1 (85 @entity1 and 85 @entity1 ) with clinical suspicion of @entity453 . They aged 26-89 years with a median age of 54 years. The @entity1 were classified into three groups: Group 1: 58 @entity1 with normal coronary arteries; group 2: 48 @entity1 with non-significant @entity453 and group 3: 64 @entity1 with significant @entity453 . The three methods for assessment of epicardial fat were retrospectively studied to determine the best method to predict the presence of significant @entity453 . RESULTS: The three methods for epicardial fat quantification and measurements, i.e., EFV, EFV/BSA and EFV/BMI with post- hoc analysis showed a significant difference between @entity1 with significant @entity453 compared to the normal group. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed no significant difference between the three methods of epicardial fat measurements, the area under curve ranging between 0.6 and 0.62. The optimal cut-off was 80.3 cm(3) for EFV, 2.4 cm(3)/m(2) for EFV indexed with BMI and 41.7 cm(3)/(kg/m(2)) for EFV indexed with BSA. For this cut-off the sensitivity ranged between 0.92 and 0.94, while specificity varied from 0.31 to 0.35. CONCLUSION: Any one of the three methods for assessment of epicardial fat can be used to predict significant @entity453 since all have the same equivalent predictive value.

Quantification of epicardial fat: Which method can predict significant XXXX ?

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['women', 'patients', 'men'] @entity453 :: ('MESH:D003324', 'Disease') :: ['CAD', 'coronary artery disease']
@entity453 :: (MESH:D003324,Disease) :: ['coronary artery disease']
