Skip to main content

Table 6 Relation between epicardial fat volume and segmental lesion (n = 120)

From: Relationship between epicardial fat volume measured by multi-detector computed tomography and coronary artery disease

  N Epicardial fat volume t p
Min.–Max Mean ± SD Median
LM
 No 103 53.0–270.0 148.6 ± 47.45 144.0 1.452 0.149
 Yes 17 106.0–243.0 166.1 ± 34.74 169.0   
Ostio &proximal LAD
 No 56 53.0–250.0 138.5 ± 45.98 136.0 2.867* 0.005*
 Yes 64 89.0–270.0 162.1 ± 43.75 159.0   
Ostio &proximal LCX
 No 102 53.0–270.0 148.2 ± 46.26 145.5 1.661 0.099
 Yes 18 89.0–247.0 167.6 ± 43.02 153.0   
Ostio &proximal RCA
 No 97 53.0–270.0 147.3 ± 46.03 144.0 1.886 0.062
 Yes 23 90.0–247.0 167.2 ± 44.0 166.0   
Mid-LAD
 No 85 53.0–264.0 143.1 ± 43.91 143.0 3.044* 0.003*
 Yes 35 90.0–270.0 170.4 ± 46.33 162.0   
Mid-LCX
 No 116 53.0–270.0 150.7 ± 46.88 145.0 2.116* 0.048*
 Yes 4 152.0–166.0 162.5 ± 7.0 166.0   
Mid-RCA
 No 106 53.0–270.0 148.6 ± 46.24 144.5 1.650 0.102
 Yes 14 89.0–247.0 170.1 ± 42.16 165.5   
Distal LAD
 No 117 53.0–270.0 151.5 ± 46.54 149.0 0.686 0.494
 Yes 3 119.0–160.0 133.0 ± 23.39 120.0   
Distal LCX
 No 117 53.0–270.0 151.1 ± 46.34 149.0
 Yes 1#   146.0    
Distal RCA
 No 107 53.0–270.0 147.5 ± 46.10 144.0 2.504* 0.07
 Yes 13 136.0–247.0 180.7 ± 35.77 173.0   
Ramus intermedius
 No 114 53.0–270.0 148.6 ± 44.49 145.0 2.618 0.06
 Yes 6 132.0–264.0 198.0 ± 56.16 186.0   
D1
 No 105 53.0–270.0 148.7 ± 45.62 145.0 1.532 0.128
 Yes 15 113.0–247.0 168.1 ± 47.78 163.0   
D2
 No 116 53.0–270.0 149.7 ± 46.03 145.5 1.753 0.082
 Yes 4 144.0–222.0 190.5 ± 33.01 198.0   
OM First
 No 101 53.0–270.0 148.0 ± 48.29 143.0 2.439 0.083
 Yes 19 119.0–222.0 167.5 ± 27.94 163.0   
PDA
 No 118 53.0–270.0 150.6 ± 46.28 145.5 0.831 0.408
 Yes 2 152.0–204.0 178.0 ± 36.77 178.0   
PLB
 No 117 53.0–270.0 150.9 ± 46.70 145.0 0.325 0.746
 Yes 3 152.0–169.0 159.7 ± 8.62 158.0   
  1. t: Student t-test; *Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05; p: p value for comparing between Epicardial fat volume and different parameters
  2. #Cases were excluded from the comparison (due to small sample size)