FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1993507943> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1993507943 endingPage "159" @default.
• W1993507943 startingPage "158" @default.
• W1993507943 abstract "There are many confusing things in life, and many things that may not obviously appear so are in fact a paradox.—Vittorio Gassman1 Since overweightness and obesity have adverse effects on cardiac structure and systolic and especially diastolic left ventricular (LV) function, as well as on cardiovascular (CV) diseases, including coronary heart disease (CHD) and hypertension (HTN), which are the leading causes of heart failure (HF), it really is no surprise that the prevalence of HF markedly increases with increasing severity of obesity.2 In a study of 5881 Framingham Heart Study participants, Kenchaiah and colleagues3 demonstrated that for every 1-kg/m2 increase in body mass index (BMI), the risk of HF increases by 5% in men and 7% in women during a 14-year follow-up, with graded increases in the risk of HF across the entire spectrum of BMI. In addition, in a study by Alpert and colleagues4 of 74 morbidly obese patients, nearly one third had clinical evidence of HF, and the prevalence of HF increased dramatically with the increasing duration of morbid obesity. Despite this evidence, numerous large studies5, 6 and meta-analyses7 have demonstrated an obesity paradox in HF, ie, overweight and obese patients with HF have a better prognosis than do their leaner counterparts, with overall similar HF severity at baseline. More than a decade ago, we demonstrated this paradox with both BMI and percentage of body fat (BF); thus, in our study, for every 1% increase in BF there was a 13% reduction in major CV events.8, 9 The mechanisms of the obesity paradox in HF remain unclear, and we have recently discussed the potential reasons for this puzzling paradox.2 Certainly, very few studies of the obesity paradox in HF have addressed the potential role of nonpurposeful weight loss prior to study entry, and in almost every condition, including HF, nonpurposeful weight loss, especially with cachexia, is associated with a poor prognosis. Many overweight and obese patients may have developed HF secondary to HTN and CHD and as a result of the abnormalities in left ventricular diastolic and systolic function that often develops in these patients. Conversely, lean patients who develop HF do so from other mechanisms that may result in a more negative prognosis. Obese patients present with HF at younger ages, have a higher LV ejection fraction (EF) and higher blood pressure, thus allowing obese patients to tolerate more cardioprotective medications and at higher doses and to have a lower expression of brain natriuretic peptides. All these factors and others may lead to an earlier presentation with less severe disease, which could lead to a better prognosis in obese patients with HF compared with lean patients. In the present and final issue of Congestive Heart Failure, Nagarajan and colleagues10 from the Cleveland Clinic HF program confirmed the obesity paradox in 501 patients in an advanced HF clinic, but their data suggest that there may be a “limit to this madness” by demonstrating a poor prognosis and, therefore, no obesity paradox in very obese patients (BMI ≥40 kg/m2) with HF. Although their data are statistically significant, it must be recognized that this relatively “new” finding is based on a very small number of only 21 morbidly obese HF patients, as the authors acknowledge. Nevertheless, considering the progressive decline that has occurred during the past 5 decades in total energy expenditure, the marked increases in obesity prevalence during this period, and the fact that “morbid” obesity is increasing even more so than is obesity per se,2, 11, 12 these results reported herein are still noteworthy and are also in line with other recent studies demonstrating a worse prognosis among the very obese. Although substantial evidence suggests that the obesity paradox in CV diseases, especially CHD, represents as much as a “lean” paradox (the leaner patients by BMI, BF, and lean body mass doing particularly poorly13, 14) or an “overweight” paradox (the overweight patients, or those with BMI 25 to 30 kg/m2, doing particularly well15-17), the results from Nagarajan and colleagues and others support that the paradox may not apply to the most obese, where prevention of morbid obesity and weight loss strategies (nonpharmacologic, pharmacologic, and surgical) are desperately needed. It is important to point out that the major clinical guidelines from various societies have differed regarding levels where weight loss is recommended (currently none recommend weight loss for patients with BMI <30 kg/m2, with various cutpoints between BMI 30–40 kg/m2), but all of the guidelines advocate weight loss for BMI ≥40 kg/m2.2 Greater efforts are needed to better define the exact role of weight reduction in many CV diseases, including CHD and HF, as well as to determine ideal body composition in both primary and secondary CV prevention. However, there is no question that there is a limit to the madness regarding more morbid obesity, where there are no longer questions regarding the adverse impact of this level of obesity in primary and secondary prevention of CV diseases. In any discussion of the obesity paradox in CV diseases, some attention directed at the critical role of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is needed. As in primary prevention18 and CHD,19 CRF has a major role in impacting prognosis that also applies to HF. We have recently demonstrated that patients with high levels of CRF in both CHD20 and HF21 have a more favorable prognosis, and an obesity paradox may not be present in patients with higher CRF, whereas a strong obesity paradox is present in patients with low CRF. Thus, leaner HF patients with low CRF (eg, peak oxygen consumption <14 cc/kg/min) have a particularly poor prognosis.21 Since higher BF in HF patients correlates with muscular strength,22 which may be a very important predictor of prognosis,23 total fitness (CRF and muscular fitness/strength) may be especially important for HF, supporting exercising training and cardiac rehabilitation for these patients. Although it is certainly possible for morbidly obese individuals, even an occasional one with HF, to maintain a preserved level of CRF, even our large recent study of more than 2000 HF patients could not assess the impact of CRF in this level of obesity, due to the limitations of CRF assessment in the morbidly obese patients.21 In our experience, very few morbidly obese HF patients can adequately perform a typical fitness test, much less achieve high CRF levels, again supporting the critical role of prevention and treatment of this level of obesity in the primary and secondary prevention of HF. In summary, very similar to other CV diseases, the obesity paradox is present in patients with HF with one notable exception being very obese patients, as demonstrated by the preliminary results of this study. In these patients, clinical measures to reduce body weight may be needed to improve the prognosis and outcomes in HF." @default.
• W1993507943 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1993507943 creator A5059582018 @default.
• W1993507943 creator A5067961809 @default.
• W1993507943 date "2013-07-01" @default.
• W1993507943 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W1993507943 title "Analyzing the Weight of Evidence on the Obesity Paradox and Heart Failure-Is There a Limit to the Madness?" @default.
• W1993507943 cites W1968836134 @default.
• W1993507943 cites W1980676653 @default.
• W1993507943 cites W2009200981 @default.
• W1993507943 cites W2011985707 @default.
• W1993507943 cites W2012903669 @default.
• W1993507943 cites W2017221955 @default.
• W1993507943 cites W2025257982 @default.
• W1993507943 cites W2025888270 @default.
• W1993507943 cites W2034661254 @default.
• W1993507943 cites W2053715742 @default.
• W1993507943 cites W2056239457 @default.
• W1993507943 cites W2059458337 @default.
• W1993507943 cites W2065470994 @default.
• W1993507943 cites W2081209712 @default.
• W1993507943 cites W2094762031 @default.
• W1993507943 cites W2115024537 @default.
• W1993507943 cites W2125262548 @default.
• W1993507943 cites W2134898759 @default.
• W1993507943 cites W2152034819 @default.
• W1993507943 cites W2158226607 @default.
• W1993507943 cites W2169166675 @default.
• W1993507943 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/chf.12040" @default.
• W1993507943 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23910699" @default.
• W1993507943 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W1993507943 type Work @default.
• W1993507943 sameAs 1993507943 @default.
• W1993507943 citedByCount "19" @default.
• W1993507943 countsByYear W19935079432014 @default.
• W1993507943 countsByYear W19935079432015 @default.
• W1993507943 countsByYear W19935079432016 @default.
• W1993507943 countsByYear W19935079432018 @default.
• W1993507943 countsByYear W19935079432019 @default.
• W1993507943 countsByYear W19935079432020 @default.
• W1993507943 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1993507943 hasAuthorship W1993507943A5059582018 @default.
• W1993507943 hasAuthorship W1993507943A5067961809 @default.
• W1993507943 hasBestOaLocation W19935079431 @default.
• W1993507943 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W1993507943 hasConcept C134306372 @default.
• W1993507943 hasConcept C151201525 @default.
• W1993507943 hasConcept C164705383 @default.
• W1993507943 hasConcept C2778198053 @default.
• W1993507943 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W1993507943 hasConcept C511355011 @default.
• W1993507943 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1993507943 hasConceptScore W1993507943C126322002 @default.
• W1993507943 hasConceptScore W1993507943C134306372 @default.
• W1993507943 hasConceptScore W1993507943C151201525 @default.
• W1993507943 hasConceptScore W1993507943C164705383 @default.
• W1993507943 hasConceptScore W1993507943C2778198053 @default.
• W1993507943 hasConceptScore W1993507943C33923547 @default.
• W1993507943 hasConceptScore W1993507943C511355011 @default.
• W1993507943 hasConceptScore W1993507943C71924100 @default.
• W1993507943 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W1993507943 hasLocation W19935079431 @default.
• W1993507943 hasLocation W19935079432 @default.
• W1993507943 hasOpenAccess W1993507943 @default.
• W1993507943 hasPrimaryLocation W19935079431 @default.
• W1993507943 hasRelatedWork W1531601525 @default.
• W1993507943 hasRelatedWork W2383994333 @default.
• W1993507943 hasRelatedWork W2758277628 @default.
• W1993507943 hasRelatedWork W2935909890 @default.
• W1993507943 hasRelatedWork W2948807893 @default.
• W1993507943 hasRelatedWork W3173606202 @default.
• W1993507943 hasRelatedWork W3183948672 @default.
• W1993507943 hasRelatedWork W588655279 @default.
• W1993507943 hasRelatedWork W2778153218 @default.
• W1993507943 hasRelatedWork W3110381201 @default.
• W1993507943 hasVolume "19" @default.
• W1993507943 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1993507943 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1993507943 magId "1993507943" @default.
• W1993507943 workType "article" @default.