4.3 Article

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) fibrosis score predicts 6.6-year overall mortality of Chinese patients with NAFLD

Journal

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1440-1681.12260

Keywords

mortality; natural history; non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; non-alcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis score

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81070316]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province [Y2091159, Y2091200]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) fibrosis score (NFS) has emerged as a useful predictor of long-term outcome in NAFLD patients. We evaluated the predictive performance of the NFS for overall mortality in a Chinese population with NAFLD. All NAFLD patients diagnosed ultrasonographically at Xixi Hospital of Hangzhou between 1996 and 2011 were retrospectively recruited to the study. Outcome was determined by interview and causes of death were confirmed by medical records. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC(ROC)) was used to determine the predictive accuracy of the NFS, BARD (body mass index, aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT) ratio, diabetes) score, FIB-4 index and the AST/platelet ratio index (APRI) for mortality. Data from a total of 180 eligible patients (median age 39years; 96 men) were analysed, with 12 deaths over a median follow-up period of 6.6years (range 0.5-14.8years). Using Cox model analysis, the NFS as a continuous variable was identified as the only predictor for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 2.743, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.670-4.504). The NFS yielded the highest AUC(ROC) of 0.828 (95% CI 0.728-0.928, P<0.05), followed by the FIB-4 index, APRI and BARD score (AUC(ROC) 0.806 (P<0.05), 0.732 (P<0.05) and 0.632, respectively). The data indicated that the NFS is a useful predictor of 6.6-year all-cause mortality for Chinese patients with NAFLD.

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