Topic Highlight
Copyright ©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Gastroenterol. Jul 21, 2014; 20(27): 9055-9071
Published online Jul 21, 2014. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i27.9055
Table 1 Studies of the association between nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and markers of atherosclerosis in children and adolescents
Ref.Study population and sample sizeDiagnosisOutcomeMain results
Schwimmer et al[21]Children (n = 817) who died of external causes from 1993 to 2003; 15% with NAFLDAutoptic liver biopsyAtherosclerosis was assessed as absent, mild (aorta only), moderate (coronary artery streaks/plaques), or severe (coronary artery narrowing)For the entire cohort, mild atherosclerosis was present in 21% and moderate to severe in 2%. Atherosclerosis was significantly more common in children with fatty liver than those without (30% vs 19%, P < 0.001)
Schwimmer et al[9]Overweight children with (n = 150), and without (n = 150) NAFLD, matched for gender, age, and severity of obesityLiver biopsyPrevalence of cardiovascular risk factors (abdominal obesity, dyslipidemia, hypertension, IR, and glucose abnormalities)NAFLD was strongly associated with multiple cardiovascular risk factors independently of both BMI and hyperinsulinemia
Pacifico et al[22]Obese children with (n = 29), and without NAFLD (n = 33); healthy lean controls (n = 30)Liver ultrasoundcIMT, mean (95%CI)NAFLD vs no NAFLD and controls: 0.58 (0.54-0.62) mm vs 0.49 (0.46-0.52) mm and 0.40 (0.36-0.43) mm; P < 0.01 and P < 0.0005, respectively Log cIMT was associated with NAFLD severity in a multiple linear regression analysis adjusted for age, gender, Tanner stage, and cardiovascular risk factors Coefficient b, 0.08; P < 0.0005
Demircioğlu et al[23]Obese children with mild (n = 32), moderate-severe NAFLD (n = 22), and without NAFLD (n = 26); healthy lean controls (n = 30) matched for age and genderLiver ultrasoundcIMT, mean ± SDAll obese vs controls:
Left CCA, 0.414 ± 0.071 mm vs 0.352 ± 0.054 mm, P < 0.0001
Left CB, 0.412 ± 0.067 mm vs 0.350 ± 0.058 mm, P < 0.0001
Left ICA, 0.324 ± 0.068 mm vs 0.266 ± 0.056 mm, P < 0.0001
NAFLD was significantly associated with left CCA, CB, ICA in multiple regression linear analyses adjusted for age, gender, weight, mean ALT level, TC, obesity, and grade of hepatosteatosis
CCA = standardized β, 0.451; P = 0.01
CB = standardized β, 0.627; P < 0.0001
ICA = standardized β, 0.501; P = 0.020
Kelishadi et al[24]Obese adolescents with (n = 25), and without (n = 25) components of MetS; normal weight adolescents with (n = 25) and without (n = 25) components of MetSLiver ultrasound and elevated ALTcIMT, mean ± SDNWMN vs NWMA vs POMN vs POMA: 0.29 ± 0.02 mm vs 0.37 ± 0.04 mm vs 0.41 ± 0.05 mm; the differences were significant between groups with the exception of NWMA vs POMN
cIMT was significantly associated with NAFLD in a logistic regression analysis after adjustment for age, gender and pubertal status
Odds ratio, 1.2 (95%CI: 1.03-2.1)
Manco et al[25]Overweight and obese children with (n = 31), and without (n = 49) NAFLD, matched for age, gender, and BMILiver biopsycIMT, median (IQR)NAFLD vs no NAFLD:
Right cIMT, 0.47 (0.07) mm vs 0.48 (0.05) mm, P = 0.659
Left cIMT, 0.49 (0.12) mm vs 0.47 (0.05) mm, P = 0.039
NAFLD was not associated with cIMT in a multivariate analysis
Caserta et al[26]Randomly selected adolescents (n = 642) of whom 30.5% and 13.5% were, respectively, overweight and obese. Overall prevalence of NAFLD, 12.5%Liver ultrasoundcIMT, mean (95%CI)NAFLD vs no NAFLD: 0.417 (0.409-0.425) mm vs 0.395 (0.392-0.397) mm, P < 0.001
NAFLD was significantly associated with cIMT in a multivariate analysis after adjustment for age, BP, BMI, TG, c-HDL, TC, IR, MetS, grade of steatosis
Standardized β, 0.0147 (95%CI: 0.0054-0.0240); P = 0.002
Pacifico et al[14]Obese children with (n = 100), and without (n = 150) NAFLD; healthy lean controls (n = 150)Liver ultrasound and elevated ALTcIMT and FMD, mean (95%CI)Controls and no NAFLD vs NAFLD: cIMT, 0.47 (0.46-0.48) mm and 0.52 (0.50-0.54) mm vs 0.55 (0.53-0.54) mm, P < 0.0001 and P < 0.01, respectively
FMD, 15.0 (13.9-17.3) and 11.8 (10.1-13.7) vs 6.7 (5.0-8.6) %, P < 0.01 and P < 0.001 respectively
NAFLD was associated with low FMD and increased cIMT in a multiple logistic regression analysis after adjustment for age, gender, Tanner stage, and MetS
Odds ratio, 2.31 (95%CI: 1.35-3.97); P = 0.002 and 1.99 (95%CI: 1.18-3.38); P = 0.010, respectively
Nobili et al[27]Children with NAFLD (n = 118)Liver biopsyAtherogenic lipid profile (TG/HDL-c, TC/HDL-c and LDL-c/HDL-c ratios)The severity of liver injury was strongly associated with a more atherogenic profile, independently of BMI, insulin resistance, and the presence of MetS
Weghuber et al[28]Obese children with (n = 14), and without (n = 14) NAFLDProton MR spectroscopyFMD, mean ± SDNAFLD vs no NAFLD: 108.6% ± 11.8% vs 110.7% ± 9.0%; P = 0.41
El-Koofy et al[29]Overweight/obese children (n = 33)Liver biopsyAtherogenic lipid profile (TC, LDL-c, HDL-c, TG)Children with NAFLD had significantly higher TC, LDL-c, TG and lower HDL-c compared to patients with normal liver histology (P < 0.05)
Sert et al[30]Obese children with (n = 44), and without (n = 36) NAFLD; lean subjects (n = 37)Liver ultrasound and elevated ALTcIMT, mean ± SDLean and no NAFLD vs NAFLD: 0.0359 ± 0.012 mm vs 0.378 ± 0.017 mm vs 0.440 ± 0.026 mm, P < 0.05 and P < 0.05, respectively
Akın et al[31]Obese children with (n = 56), and without (n = 101) NAFLDLiver ultrasoundcIMT, mean (95%CI)NAFLD vs no NAFLD: 0.48 (0.47-0.49) mm vs 0.45 (0.44-0.45) mm, P < 0.001
NAFLD was the only variable associated with increased cIMT in a multiple regression adjusted for age and gender
β, 0.031 [SE (β) = 0.008]; P < 0.001
Gökçe et al[32]Obese children with (n = 50), and without (n = 30) NAFLD; healthy lean controls (n = 30)Liver ultrasoundcIMT, mean ± SDNAFLD vs no NAFLD vs control group:
Right cIMT, 0.46 ± 0.21 mm vs 0.35 ± 0.09 mm vs 0.30 ± 0.13 mm, P < 0.01
Left cIMT, 0.44 ± 0.09 mm vs 0.35 ± 0.08 mm vs 0.27 ± 0.04 mm, P < 0.01
NAFLD was the only variable associated with increased cIMT in a multiple regression adjusted for age, gender, BMI, BP, TG, HDL-c, IR and MetS
Right cIMT = β, 0.241; P < 0.05
Left cIMT = β, 0.425; P < 0.01
Sert et al[33]Obese children with (n = 97), and without (n = 83) NAFLD; lean subjects (n = 68)Liver ultrasound and elevated ALTcIMT, mean ± SDLean and no NAFLD vs NAFLD: 0.354 ± 0.009 mm vs 0.383 ± 0.019 mm vs 0.437 ± 0.028 mm; P < 0.05 and P < 0.05, respectively
Alp et al[34]Obese children with (n = 93), and without (n = 307) NAFLD; healthy lean controls (n = 150)Liver ultrasoundcIMT, mean ± SDSevere NAFLD vs mild NAFLD vs no NAFLD vs controls: 0.09 ± 0.01 cm vs 0.10 ± 0.01 cm vs 0.09 ± 0.01 cm vs 0.06 ± 0.01 cm, P < 0.001
Huang et al[35]Adolescents (n = 964)Liver ultrasoundPWV, mean ± SDNo NAFLD, low metabolic risk vs NAFLD, low metabolic risk vs no NAFLD, high metabolic risk vs NAFLD, high metabolic risk: males, 6.6 ± 0.7 m/s vs 6.7 ± 0.6 m/s vs 6.9 ± 1.0 m/s; females, 6.2 ± 0.7 m/s vs 6.3 ± 0.7 m/s vs 6.5 ± 0.7 m/s vs 6.4 ± 0.6 m/s
Males and females who had NAFLD in the presence of the metabolic cluster had greater PWV
b, 0.20 (95%CI: 0.01-0.38); P = 0.037
Jin et al[36]Obese children (n = 71), and healthy controls (n = 47)Liver ultrasoundPWV, mean ± SDObese vs controls: 4.54 ± 0.66 m/s vs 3.70 ± 0.66 m/s, P < 0.001
Fatty liver was positively correlated with PWV (P < 0.01)