4.8 Article

Prevalence and risk factors of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in potential living liver donors in Korea: A review of 589 consecutive liver biopsies in a single center

Journal

JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
Volume 47, Issue 2, Pages 239-244

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2007.02.007

Keywords

non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; non-alcoholic steatohepatitis; liver donor; liver transplantation; liver biopsy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Aims: The aim of the study was to evaluate the prevalence and risk factors of biopsy-proven non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in potential living liver donors and to evaluate the efficacy of imaging techniques for the detection of steatosis in donors. Methods: We reviewed the results of liver biopsy, ultrasonography (USG) and computed tomography (CT) and biochemical data performed in 589 consecutive potential liver donors as a pretransplantation work up from July 2004 to September 2005 at Asan Medical Centre. Results: Of 589 participants, 408 (69.30/0) were men, with a mean age of 31.1 +/- 9.5 years. NAFLD 5% steatosis in biopsy) was diagnosed in 303 (51.4%); > 30% steatosis in 61 (10.4%) and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis in 13 (2.2%). The independent risk factors for > 30% steatosis were age over 30 (OR = 2.223; p = 0.014), obesity (OR = 5.320; p < 0.001) and hypertriglyceridemia (OR = 2.253; p = 0.019) by multivariate analysis. The sensitivity of USG and CT for detecting > 30% steatosis was 92.3% and 64.1%, and positive predictive value was only 34.5% and 45.1%, respectively. Conclusions: NAFLD was highly prevalent in potential living liver donors. The independent risk factors for significant steatosis were older age, obesity and hypertriglyceridemia. USG and CT had limitations in detecting significant steatosis in liver donors. (C) 2007 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available