4.3 Article

Increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease in Type 2 diabetic patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

Journal

DIABETIC MEDICINE
Volume 23, Issue 4, Pages 403-409

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2006.01817.x

Keywords

cardiovascular disease; metabolic syndromne; non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; Type 2 diabetes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims To estimate the prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in Type 2 diabetic patients with and without non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and to assess whether NAFLD is independently related to prevalent CVD. Methods We studied 400 Type 2 diabetic patients with NAFLD and 400 diabetic patients without NAFLD who were matched for age and sex. Main outcome measures were prevalent CVD (as ascertained by medical history, physical examination, electrocardiogram and echo-Doppler scanning of carotid and lower limb arteries), NAFLD (by ultrasonography) and presence of the metabolic syndrome (MetS) as defined by the World Health Organization or Adult Treatment Panel III criteria. Results The prevalences of coronary (23.0 vs. 15.5%), cerebrovascular (17.2 vs. 10.2%) and peripheral (12.8 vs. 7.0%) vascular disease were significantly increased in those with NAFLD as compared with those without NAFLD (P < 0.001), with no differences between sexes. The MetS (by any criteria) and all its individual components were more frequent in NAFLD patients (P < 0.001). In logistic regression analysis, male sex, age, smoking history and MetS were independently related to prevalent CVD, whereas NAFLD was not. Conclusions The prevalence of CVD is increased in patients with Type 2 diabetes and NAFLD in association with an increased prevalence of MetS as compared with diabetic patients without NAFLD. Follow-up studies are necessary to determine whether this higher prevalence of CVD among diabetic patients with NAFLD affects long-term mortality.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available