4.6 Article

A Prospective Study of Fatty Liver Index and Incident Hypertension: The KoGES-ARIRANG Study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143560

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Although non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is the hepatic manifestation of metabolic syndrome, its influence on hypertension development is poorly understood. We investigated whether fatty liver disease, as assessed by the fatty liver index, could predict the development of hypertension independently of systemic insulin resistance, inflammatory status and adipokine levels. Methods Prospective cohort study of 1,521 adults (484 men and 1037 women) aged 40 to 70 years without baseline hypertension examined. An equation was used to calculate fatty liver index and classify patients as follows: fatty liver index <30, no non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; fatty liver index >= 60, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; and 30 <= fatty liver index <60, intermediate fatty liver index. Results During an average of 2.6 years of follow-up, 153 subjects (10.06%) developed hypertension. Fatty liver index was positively associated with baseline blood pressure, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, urinary albumin/creatinine excretion, and high sensitivity C-reactive protein. After adjustment for confounding factors, including markers of insulin resistance, systemic inflammation and adiponectin levels, the odds ratio [95% confidence interval] for the incident hypertension increased in a graded manner with fatty liver index (<30 vs. 30-59 vs. >= 60 = 1 vs. 1.83 [1.16 similar to 2.88] vs. 2.09 [1.08 similar to 4.055], respectively). Conclusions Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease assessed by fatty liver index was an independent risk factor for hypertension. Our findings suggest that fatty liver index, a simple surrogate indicator of fatty liver disease, might be useful for identifying subjects at high risk for incident hypertension in clinical practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据