4.7 Article

Liver fibrosis is associated with carotid atherosclerosis in patients with liver biopsy-proven nonalcoholic fatty liver disease

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-95581-8

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that the severity of fibrosis in NAFLD is significantly and independently associated with high-risk CIMT. Non-invasive liver fibrosis markers and scoring systems may help estimate the risk of atherosclerosis progression in patients with NAFLD.
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is related to subclinical atherosclerosis. However, whether the severity of the disease (or which histopathological component) is associated with subclinical atherosclerosis remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the association between the histopathological severity of NAFLD and carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) in Japanese patients with liver biopsy-proven NAFLD. Maximum-CIMT (max-CIMT) was measured as an index of carotid atherosclerosis in 195 biopsy-proven NAFLD patients. A significant association was observed between the severity of fibrosis (but not steatosis, inflammation, and ballooning) and max-CIMT. Older age, male gender, hypertension, and advanced fibrosis were independently linked to max-CIMT >= 1.2 mm. The prevalence of max-CIMT >= 1.2 mm was significantly higher in the advanced fibrosis group than in the non-advanced fibrosis group (75.4% versus 44.0%; p < 0.01). Non-invasive liver fibrosis markers and scoring systems, including fibrosis-4 index, NAFLD fibrosis score, hyaluronic acid, and Wisteria floribunda agglutinin positive Mac- 2-binding protein, demonstrated that the diagnostic performance for max-CIMT >= 1.2 mm was similar to that of biopsy-based fibrosis staging. In conclusion, advanced fibrosis is significantly and independently associated with high-risk CIMT. Non-invasive fibrosis markers and scoring systems could help estimate the risk of atherosclerosis progression in patients with NAFLD.

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

4.7
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