Table 3.
EAT Modeling Outcomes and Model Covariates
| Study | EAT Modeling | Regression Outcomes | Covariates in Multivariable Model | Threshold/ROC AUC Values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lu et al21 | Indexed and absolute EAT |
Any HRP with indexed EAT‐v: OR: 1.04 (95% CI, 1–1.08; P=0.04) Any HRP with absolute EAT‐v: OR: 1.02 (95% CI, 1–1.03; P=0.046) |
Age, sex, number of cardiovascular risk factors, log CACS, >50% stenosis | Optimal threshold 62.3 cm3/m2 with sensitivity 48.5%, specificity 72.7%; no ROC AUC specified |
| Schlett et al22 | EAT per SD (49.8 mL) | Presence of HRP: OR: 1.79 (95% CI, 1.13–2.76; P=0.008) | Not specified | Not reported |
| Rajani et al24 | Log EAT‐v |
Any HRP: OR: 1.7 (95% CI, 0.9–3.4; P=0.038) LAP: OR: 2.4 (95% CI, 1.1–5.1; P=0.02) PR: OR: 1.8 (95% CI, 1.0–3.4; P=0.07) Both HRP features: OR: 2.6 (95% CI, 1.1–6.2; P=0.03) |
Age, BMI, diabetes mellitus, hypercholesterolemia, smoking, family history, hypertension | ROC AUC of 0.756 for any HRP presence with sensitivity 62%, specificity 84%; optimal threshold of EAT <74.07 cm3 excluded any HRP |
| Oka et al23 | High vs low‐EAT‐v (100 mL threshold) |
LAP: OR: 3.08 (95% CI, 1.66–5.83; P<0.001) PR: OR: 2.08 (95% CI, 1.12–3.88; P=0.02) SpC: OR: 1.11 (95% CI, 0.61–2.04; P=0.73) LAP+PR: OR: 2.56 (95% CI, 1.38–4.85; P=0.003) All 3 features: OR: 1.65 (95% CI 0.81–3.44; P=0.17) |
Age, sex, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, smoking, BMI, VAT area, CACS | Using a threshold of 100 mL, sensitivity for LAP+PR was 80%, specificity was 41% |
| Ito et al25 | EAT‐v per 10 cm3 | Any HRP: OR: 1.19 (95% CI, 1.12–1.27; P<0.01) | Male, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, BMI | ROC AUC of 0.75 for any HRP presence at optimal threshold 127.1 cm3 with sensitivity 64%, specificity 81% |
| Nakanishi et al26 | EAT‐v per 10 mL | Presence of HRP: OR: 1.15 (95% CI, 1.05–1.26; P=0.003) | Age per 10 y, sex, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, smoking, BMI | … |
| Ito et al29 | Highest tertile of EAT |
Presence of TCFA: OR: 2.92 (95% CI, 1.13–7.55; P=0.027) Correlation of EAT with fibrous cap thickness: r=−0.400, P<0.01 |
ACS, BMI | ROC AUC of 0.721 for detection of TCFA with optimal threshold 126.7 cm3, sensitivity 69% specificity 71% |
| Park et al28 | High vs low‐EAT‐t (3.5 mm threshold) | Total TCFAs in symptom‐related vessel: β=0.106 (95% CI, 0.004–0.208; P=0.043) | BMI, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, metabolic syndrome | Not specified |
| Tachibana et al27 | High vs low‐EAT‐t (5.8 mm threshold) | Presence of HRP: OR: 7.98 (95% CI, 2.77–22.98; P<0.01) | Age, sex, BMI, VAT, hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, smoker, CACS >100, stenotic vessel number, renal insufficiency, statins | ROC AUC of 0.77 for HRP (combination of LAP+PR) at threshold of 5.8 mm with sensitivity 83%, specificity 64% |
ACS indicates acute coronary syndrome; BMI, body mass index; CACS, coronary artery calcium score (noncontrast computed tomography); CI, confidence interval; EAT, epicardial adipose tissue; EAT‐t, EAT thickness; EAT‐v, volumetric EAT; HRP, high‐risk plaque; LAP, low‐attenuation plaque; OR, odds ratio; PR, positive remodeling; ROC AUC, receiver operating characteristic area under the curve; SpC, spotty calcification; TCFA, thin‐cap fibroatheroma; VAT, visceral adipose tissue.