4.4 Article

Impact of NAFLD on the Incidence of Cardiovascular Diseases in a Primary Care Population in Germany

期刊

DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES
卷 65, 期 7, 页码 2112-2119

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-019-05986-9

关键词

Stroke; Myocardial infarction; NASH; NAFLD; Atrial fibrillation; Cardiovascular disease; Metabolic syndrome

资金

  1. University Medical Center Mainz

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Patients with NAFLD are considered at a high risk of cardiovascular events due to underlying metabolic risk factors. Currently, data related to the impact of NAFLD on cardiovascular risk in the general population are lacking. Aims The aim of this study was to investigate the role of NAFLD on risk of myocardial infarction (MI), coronary heart disease (CHD), atrial fibrillation (AF), and stroke in primary care in Germany. Methods The study included patients diagnosed with NAFLD in primary care between 2010 and 2015. NAFLD cases (n = 22,048) were matched to a cohort without NAFLD (n = 22,048) based on age, sex, treating physician, type 2 diabetes, arterial hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. The primary outcome of the study was the incidence of MI, CHD, AF, and stroke. Results Within 10 years of the index date, 12.8% of patients with NAFLD and 10.0% of controls were diagnosed with CHD (p < 0.001). Additionally, frequency of MI was significantly higher in NAFLD (2.9% vs. 2.3%, p < 0.001). On regression analysis, HR for incidence of MI was 1.34 (p = 0.003) in all NAFLD patients and 1.35 (p = 0.013) for men. Incidence of AF was significantly higher in patients with NAFLD. On regression analysis, HR for incidence of AF was 1.15 (p = 0.005). NAFLD was not associated with a higher incidence of stroke (HR 1.09, p = 0.243). Conclusions NAFLD constitutes an independent risk factor for CHD, MI, and AF in primary care in Germany. Identification of patients with NAFLD in primary care will allow specifically managing and modifying underlying risk factors to improve the overall prognosis.

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

4.4
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