| Literature DB >> 28484681 |
Abdul M Minhas1, Muhammad Shariq Usman2, Muhammad S Khan3, Kaneez Fatima4, Muhammad A Mangi5, Michael A Illovsky6.
Abstract
Association between non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and various cardiovascular diseases has been demonstrated previously. Recent clinical studies have shown that increased circulating levels of γ glutamyl transpeptidase and liver transaminase, markers which are elevated in NAFLD, increase the risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available evidence to establish the possible association of increased chances of atrial fibrillation in patients with NAFLD. We extensively searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science and Scopus databases to identify all possible studies that investigated the possible association of NAFLD with atrial fibrillation. Random effect models were used to pool the data between NAFLD and non-NAFLD group. I2 testing was done to assess the heterogeneity of the included studies. Our primary outcome was atrial fibrillation. A total of three studies including 1044 patients in the NAFLD arm and 1016 in the placebo arm were included. On pooled analysis, it was observed that patients with NAFLD had 2.5 times significantly higher chance (OR = 2.47, CI = 1.30-4.66, p = 0.005) of developing new-onset atrial fibrillation. Our meta-analysis identifies the paucity of high-quality evidence regarding the association between NAFLD and atrial fibrillation. More studies are needed to confirm the link between NAFLD and atrial fibrillation.Entities:
Keywords: atrial fibrillation; liver disease; meta-analysis; nafld
Year: 2017 PMID: 28484681 PMCID: PMC5419817 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.1142
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cureus ISSN: 2168-8184
Figure 1PRISMA flow sheet
Characteristics of the three included studies
ALT: Alanine aminotransferase; ANP: Atrial natriuretic peptide; BMI: Body mass index; BP: Blood pressure; CAD: Coronary artery disease; COR: Crude odds ratio; ECG: Electrocardiogram; HF: Heart failure; hs-CRP: High sensitivity C- reactive protein; IHD: Ischemic heart disease; LVH: Left ventricular hypertrophy; NAFLD: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; VHD: Valvular heart disease.
| Study | Population | Mean Age (NAFLD/No-NAFLD) | Males % (NAFLD/No-NAFLD) | NAFLD Assessment | AF Assessment | Outcome (AF/Total) | Mean Follow-up Time | Adjustment of Covariates | Result |
|
Karajamaki AJ, 2015 Finland Prospective Cohort Study | Total; 958 NAFLD: 249 Non-NAFLD: 709 | 52±6/51±6 | 58/43 | Hepatic ultrasonography by a radiologist with 10-year experience | Based on standard 12-lead resting ECG. (noted in medical records) | NAFLD: 37/249 Non-NAFLD: 56/709 | 16.3 years | Age, sex, diabetes mellitus, BMI, waist circumference, smoking, serum ALT, systolic BP, Left atrial diameter, ANP, CAD and hs-CRP | COR 1.96 (1.29-2.97) |
|
Targher G, 2013 Italy Prospective Cohort Study | Total: 400 NAFLD: 281 Non-NAFLD: 119 | 63±9/64±9 | 59.4/57.1 | Hepatic ultrasonography performed in all patients by an experienced radiologist, who was blind to the participants' details | Based on a standard 12-lead resting ECG. (noted in routine examination, or in medical records) | NAFLD: 38/281 Non-NAFLD: 4/119 | 10 years | Age, sex, hypertension, LVH status and PR interval | COR 4.49 (1.6-12.9) |
|
Targher G, 2013 Italy Cross-Sectional Study | Total: 702 NAFLD: 514 Non-NAFLD: 188 | 65±13/68±14 | 55.6/49.5 | Hepatic ultrasonography was performed in all patients by experienced radiologists, who were blinded to subjects' characteristics | Based on a standard 12-lead ECG done during hospital stay; or from medical history. (noted during hospital stay, or in medical records) | NAFLD: 75/514 Non-NAFLD: 10/188 | - | Age, sex, diabetes duration, HbA1c, LVH status, IHD, VHD and HF | COR 3.04 (1.54-6.02) |
Quality assessment of cohort studies
*(A), *(B), **(A+B): refer to 'Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies' [7]
| Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies | ||
| Karajamaki AJ, et al., 2015 | Targher G, et al., 2013 | |
| Selection | ||
| 1) Representativeness of cohort | *(A) | *(A) |
| 2) Selection of non-exposed cohort | *(A) | *(A) |
| 3) Ascertainment of exposure | *(A) | *(A) |
| 4) Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at the start of the study | *(A) | *(A) |
| Comparability | ||
| 1) Comparability of cohorts on the basis of design or analysis | **(A+B) | **(A+B) |
| Outcome | ||
| 1) Assessment of outcome | *(B) | *(B) |
| 2) Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur? | *(A) | *(A) |
| 3) Adequacy of follow-up cohorts | *(A) | *(A) |
| Total Score | 9/9 | 9/9 |
Quality assessment of the cross-sectional study
*(A), -(B), **(A), **(A+B), **(B): refer to 'Modified Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cross-Sectional Studies' [7]
| Modified Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cross-Sectional Studies | |
| Targher G, et al., 2013 | |
| Selection | |
| 1) Representativeness of sample | *(A) |
| 2) Sample size | -(B) |
| 3) Non-respondents | *(A) |
| 4) Ascertainment of exposure | **(A) |
| Comparability | |
| 1) Subjects are comparable on the basis of study design or analysis | **(A+B) |
| Outcome | |
| 1) Assessment of outcome | **(B) |
| 2) Statistical test | *(A) |
| Total Score | 9/10 |
Figure 2Forest plot summarizing the pooling of studies
Figure 3Begg graph for publication bias
s.e.: standard error