Serum paraoxonase activity is associated with epicardial fat tissue in renal transplant recipients

Abstract

Reduced PON-1 activity was negatively associated with EFT and PON-1 activity independently predicts EFT in renal transplant recipients.

The importance of paraoxonase 1 activity in chronic kidney disease

“…Therefore, it was concluded that reduced PON1 activity in RT recipients is significantly associated with arterial stiffening, a fact that was attributed to increased oxidized LDL, which stimulates collagen synthesis in atrial smooth muscle and causes intimal thickening. Furthermore, the association of PON1 activity with epicardial fat tissue (EFT) was analyzed in RT and HD patients [ 94 , 95 ]. The enlargement of EFT, observed in many pathological conditions connected with increased ROS production like CKD, is considered as another cardiovascular risk factor [ 96 ].…”

“…The enlargement of EFT, observed in many pathological conditions connected with increased ROS production like CKD, is considered as another cardiovascular risk factor [ 96 ]. It was found that PON1 activity was negatively correlated with EFT in RT patients [ 94 ] and in ESRD individuals on HD [ 95 ]. In a multivariate regression analysis model containing several independent variables, it was found that PON1 activity plus age, BMI, total cholesterol, HDL-C and triglycerides levels were independent predictors of EFT [ 95 ].…”

Epicardial Adipose Tissue and Renal Disease

“…In a post hoc analysis on 98 kidney transplant patients, the impact of the epicardial fat gain on ventricular mass after kidney transplantation could not be positively confirmed [59]. Similar to hemodialysis patients, PON-1 activity was found to be inversely correlated with EAT thickness in renal transplant patients [60]. When EAT changes were compared between hemodialysis patients and kidney transplant patients, EAT measurements were significantly higher in hemodialysis patients than in the kidney transplant patients, and the EAT measurements of the kidney transplant patients were not statistically different from the healthy subjects [61].…”