Risk difference of liver-related and cardiovascular events by liver fibrosis status in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease

Author(s):  
Nobuharu Tamaki ◽  
Mayu Higuchi ◽  
Masayuki Kurosaki ◽  
Rohit Loomba ◽  
Namiki Izumi ◽  
...  
Diabetes ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 427-P
Author(s):  
CHRISTOPH H. SAELY ◽  
ALEXANDER VONBANK ◽  
MAXIMILIAN MAECHLER ◽  
BARBARA LARCHER ◽  
LUKAS SPRENGER ◽  
...  

JGH Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Shafi Kuchay ◽  
Narendra Singh Choudhary ◽  
Sunil Kumar Mishra ◽  
Tarannum Bano ◽  
Sakshi Gagneja ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 138 (5) ◽  
pp. S-453 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naim Alkhouri ◽  
Christine A. Carter-Kent ◽  
Anna Alisi ◽  
Ariel E. Feldstein ◽  
Valerio Nobili

Hepatology ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 1209-1217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca Valenti ◽  
Ahmad Al-Serri ◽  
Ann K. Daly ◽  
Enrico Galmozzi ◽  
Raffaela Rametta ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 188-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu.M. Stepanov ◽  
N.V. Nedzvetskaya ◽  
V.B. Yagmur ◽  
I.A. Klenina ◽  
N.Yu. Oshmyanskaya

Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 132 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Toufik Mahfood Haddad ◽  
Shadi Hamdeh ◽  
Mahesh Anantha Narayanan ◽  
Arun Kanmanthareddy ◽  
Venkata M Alla

Background: Numerous studies have assessed the association of Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) withcardiovascular disease (CVD). However, results have been conflicting due to variability in definitionsof NAFLD and ascertainment of CVD, often combining clinical and surrogate endpoints. We therefore systematically reviewed published literature to assess the association between NAFLD and clinical cardiovascular events. Methods: We searched Medline, Cochrane, google scholar, CINAHL, and Web of Sciencedatabasesusing terms “nonalcoholic fatty liver disease”, “cardiovascular disease”, and their combinations to identify studies published through March 2015. Data from selected studies was extracted and meta-analysis was then performed using Random effects model following the PRISMA guidelines. Publication bias and heterogeneity wereassessed. The main outcome measure was Odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI. Clinical CVD was defined as symptomatic coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, coronary or peripheral intervention, ischemic stroke, and symptomatic peripheral vascular disease. Results: A total of 7 studies with 14634 patients (NAFLD: 4204; controls: 10430) were included in the final analysis. 3 studies were cross- sectional reporting prevalence, while 4 studies were prospective cohort studies reporting incidence. Patients with NAFLD had a significantly higher risk of clinical CVD compared to controls [OR: 3.17; 95% CI: 1.89-5.30, P<0.01) (figure 1A). There was significant heterogeneity (I2=93%). Funnel plot and Begg’s test did not reveal significant publication bias. Separate analyses of the cohort and cross sectional studies and exclusion sensitivity analysis did not alter the findings (figure 1B). Conclusion: NAFLD is associated with a three fold increase in the risk of clinical CVD compared to controls without NAFLD. These results need to be conformed in large prospective studies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document