4.3 Article

Prevalence of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Pancreas Disease (NAFPD) and its risk factors among adult medical check-up patients in a private hospital: a large cross sectional study

期刊

BMC GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 15, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-015-0404-1

关键词

Fatty pancreas; Metabolic syndrome; Non-alcoholic fatty pancreas disease; Risk factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The clinical significance of non-alcoholic fatty pancreatic disease (NAFPD) or fatty pancreas is largely unknown. It is often an incidental finding on abdominal ultrasound, which is not explored further, especially its association with metabolic condition and the risk of pancreatic malignancy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the presence of NAFPD and its associated risk factors among adult medical check-up patients. Method: A large cross-sectional study was done among adult medical check-up patients underwent abdominal ultrasound between January and December 2013 in Medistra Hospital, Jakarta. Data was obtained from the patients' medical record and include demographic data, blood pressures, fasting blood glucose level, and lipid profile. The presence of fatty pancreas was diagnosed by ultrasound. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were done to find associated risk factors for NAFPD. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS version 17. Results: A total of 1054 cases were included in this study; pancreas cannot be visualized in 153 cases and were excluded from the analysis. Fatty pancreas was present in 315 (35.0 %) patients. Bivariate analyses found associations among fatty pancreas and several risk factors such as gender, age, systolic and diastolic blood pressures, body mass index (BMI), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), triglycerides (TG) and cholesterol levels. Conclusion: Fatty pancreas is a common finding during medical check-up with a prevalence of 35 %. Fatty pancreas has significant association with metabolic factors and it might have an important role in risk of malignancy.

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

4.3
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