PDF下载 ( 1893 KB)
甘油三酯葡萄糖乘积指数联合肥胖指标对阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停患者发生非酒精性脂肪性肝病的预测价值
DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2023.03.010
Value of triglyceride-glucose index combined with obesity index in predicting nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in individuals with obstructive sleep apnea
-
摘要:
目的 探讨甘油三酯葡萄糖乘积指数(TyG)、TyG联合BMI及TyG联合腰围(WC)预测阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)患者发生非酒精性脂肪性肝病(NAFLD)的价值。 方法 回顾性分析2020年1月—2021年12月在昆明医科大学第二附属医院行睡眠呼吸监测并诊断为OSA的患者190例，依据超声检查结果分为OSA合并NAFLD组107例及对照组83例。计量资料两组间比较采用t检验或Mann-Whitney U检验；计数资料两组间比较采用χ2检验。采用二元Logistic回归分析探讨OSA患者发生NAFLD的影响因素。绘制TyG、TyG联合BMI及TyG联合WC预测OSA患者发生NAFLD的受试者工作特征曲线(ROC曲线)，计算曲线下面积(AUC)。AUC的比较采用Z检验。 结果 与对照组相比，OSA合并NAFLD患者的BMI、颈围、WC、AHI、ODI、ALT、GGT、TG、FPG、TyG较高，年龄、Average SpO2、LSaO2、HDL-C较低(P值均＜0.05)。二元Logistic分析显示TyG(OR=1.961，95%CI：1.03~3.73，P=0.040)、BMI(OR=1.203，95%CI：1.03~1.41，P=0.020)、WC(OR=1.074，95%CI：1.01~1.14，P=0.026)为OSA患者发生NAFLD的独立危险因素。TyG、TyG联合BMI及TyG联合WC预测OSA患者发生NAFLD的AUC(95%CI)分别为0.696(0.625~0.760)、0.787(0.722~0.843)和0.803(0.739~0.857)，最佳截断点分别为8.72、0.36和0.60。TyG联合BMI对OSA患者发生NAFLD的预测价值高于TyG(Z=2.542，P=0.011)，TyG联合WC的预测价值也高于TyG(Z=2.976，P=0.002 9)。 结论 TyG、TyG联合BMI及TyG联合WC对OSA发生NAFLD具有良好的预测价值，以TyG联合WC的预测价值最佳，有望成为OSA患者发生NAFLD风险的预测指标。 -
关键词:
- 睡眠呼吸暂停, 阻塞性 /
- 非酒精性脂肪性肝病 /
- 甘油三酯葡萄糖乘积指数 /
- 人体质量指数 /
- 腰围
Abstract:Objective To investigate the value of triglyceride-glucose index (TyG), TyG combined with body mass index (BMI), and TyG combined with waist circumference (WC) in predicting nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Methods A retrospective analysis was performed for 190 patients who underwent sleep respiratory monitoring and were diagnosed with OSA in The Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University from January 2020 to December 2021, and according to the results of ultrasonography, they were divided into OSA+NAFLD group with 107 patients and control group with 83 patients. The t-test or the Mann Whitney U test was used for comparison of continuous data between two groups, and the chi-square test was used for comparison of categorical data between two groups. The binary logistic regression analysis was used to explore the influencing factors for the development of NAFLD in patients with OSA. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted for TyG, TyG combined with BMI, and TyG combined with WC in predicting NAFLD in the patients with OSA, and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was calculated. The Z test was used for comparison of AUC. Results Compared with the control group, the OSA+NAFLD group had significantly higher BMI, neck circumference, WC, apnea-hypopnea index, oxygen desaturation index, alanine aminotransferase, gamma-glutamyltransferase, triglyceride, fasting plasma glucose, and TyG and significantly lower age, average SpO2, LSaO2, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (all P < 0.05). The binary logistic regression analysis showed that TyG (odds ratio [OR]=1.961, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-3.73, P=0.04), BMI (OR=1.203, 95%CI: 1.03-1.41, P=0.020), and WC (OR=1.074, 95%CI: 1.01-1.14, P=0.026) were independent risk factors for NAFLD in patients with OSA. TyG, TyG combined with BMI, and TyG combined with WC had an AUC of 0.696 (95%CI: 0.625-0.760), 0.787 (95%CI: 0.722-0.843), and 0.803 (95%CI: 0.739-0.857), respectively, in predicting NAFLD in OSA patients, with an optimal cut-off value of 8.72, 0.36, and 0.60, respectively. TyG combined with BMI had a significantly higher value than TyG in predicting NAFLD in OSA patients (Z=2.542, P=0.011), and TyG combined with WC also had a significantly higher predictive value than TyG (Z=2.976, P=0.002 9). Conclusion TyG, TyG combined with BMI, and TyG combined with WC have a good value in predicting NAFLD in OSA patients, among which TyG combined with WC has the best predictive value and is thus expected to become a predictor for the risk of NAFLD in OSA patients. -
尽管药物和内镜治疗是门静脉高压症导致的食管胃静脉曲张破裂出血的首选治疗，但在内镜下止血失败，同时不能进行下一步治疗的情况下，脾切除门奇静脉断流术仍然是治疗食管胃底静脉曲张破裂出血的主要方式之一[1]，脾切除门奇静脉断流术后肝脏血流动力学改变是研究热点之一，术后早期血流动力学研究较多[2]，而对于术后血流动力学的长期、动态变化规律未见报道，本研究对术后患者进行长期随访，观察肝固有动脉及门静脉血流动力学的动态变化特点，分析肝脏血流动力学变化规律，为进一步了解脾切除门奇静脉断流术后肝功能、肝硬化等变化提供血流动力学方面的支持。
1. 资料与方法
1.1 研究对象
收集2014年4月—2019年2月首都医科大学附属北京佑安医院普外中心103例门静脉高压行脾切断流术患者的临床资料。
1.2 纳入和排除标准
纳入标准：(1)各种原因引起的肝硬化；(2)行脾切断流术；(3)有上消化道出血史或胃镜提示食管胃底静脉重度曲张，红色征阳性。排除标准：(1)合并肝癌或其他恶性肿瘤；(2)布加综合征、血液系统疾病、冠心病及其他需长期服用抗凝药物的疾病；(3)术后门静脉系统血栓形成。
1.3 术后抗凝治疗方案
所有行脾切断流术患者均于术后48~72 h开始给予低分子肝素皮下注射，0.3 mL/12 h，应用3~5 d，并口服华法林抗凝治疗，维持国际标准化比值(INR)在1.25~1.5，血小板计数＞100×109/L时加用阿司匹林肠溶片100 mg/d，当血小板计数＞300×109/L时加用噻氯匹定0.25 g/d抗血小板凝聚，直至血小板降至正常水平。术后2周内，每周常规行2次彩色多普勒超声监测肝脏血流变化。对于上述预防治疗后仍发生门静脉血栓患者给予静脉溶栓治疗，溶栓方案为：尿激酶持续泵入，200 000 U/30 min，维持量30 000~50 000 U/h，应用3~5 d，尿激酶停用后，继续抗凝治疗。
1.4 随访
随访截止到2021年2月，随访时间为24~82个月，中位随访时间42个月，随访数据来自门诊及住院病历记录以及电话随访。患者术后1~2周出院，术后2周至3个月，每2~4周检测1次血常规、PT、INR、门静脉血流超声(包括门静脉内径、流量、门静脉最大流速、门静脉平均流速、肝固有动脉内径、流量、最大流速、最小流速等)，术后3个月至6个月，1~3个月完善1次上述检查；6个月后，每6个月完善1次上述检查。
1.5 统计学方法
采用SPSS 21.0软件行数据分析，计量资料以x±s表示，符合正态分布时采用配对样本t检验分析术前、术后指标的差异。P＜0.05为差异有统计学意义。
2. 结果
2.1 一般资料
103例患者，随访96例，失访7例，随访率93.2%，其中男67例，女29例，年龄27~74岁，平均(47.6±9.4)岁，其中乙型肝炎肝硬化66例、丙型肝炎肝硬化12例、酒精性肝硬化11例、原发性胆汁性胆管炎5例、自身免疫性肝硬化2例(表 1)。术后门静脉压力较术前明显降低(P＜0.001)，而术后Child-Pugh分级较术前无明显变化(表 2)。
表 1 患者术前一般资料Table 1. Patient demographic and baseline characteristics项目 数值 年龄(岁) 47.6±9.4 性别(例) 男 67 女 29 病因(例) 乙型肝炎肝硬化 66 丙型肝炎肝硬化 12 酒精性肝硬化 11 原发性胆汁性胆管炎 5 自身免疫性肝病 2 Child-Pugh分级(例) A 68 B 24 C 4 表 2 术前、术后门静脉压力及肝功能变化Table 2. Comparison of portal vein pressure and liver function at baseline and postoperatively in liver cirrhosis patients项目 术前 术后 统计值 P值 门静脉压力(cmH2O) 36.1±4.1 23.9±3.9 t=14.99 < 0.001 TBil (μmol/L) 21.5±9.2 15.2±6.6 t=5.33 < 0.001 Alb (g/L) 36.9±3.7 35.5±1.8 t=2.20 0.027 PT (s) 13.9±2.0 16.2±5.7 t=-6.70 < 0.001 Child-Pugh分级(A/B/C) 68/24/4 69/24/3 χ2=4.00 0.407 2.2 术后1周肝血流情况
患者门静脉内径、门静脉流量、门静脉最大流速及门静脉平均流速均较术前显著减低(P值均＜0.05)。肝固有动脉内径、流量、最大流速及最小流速均较术前明显升高(P值均＜0.05)(表 3)。
表 3 术前和术后1周肝血流情况比较Table 3. Comparison of hepatic hemodynamics at baseline and 1 week postoperation in liver cirrhosis patients项目 例数 术前 术后1周 t值 P值 门静脉内径(mm) 89 12.79±1.50 12.19±1.60 3.13 0.003 门静脉流量(mL) 89 1 533.01±125.48 1 088.15±136.65 6.16 ＜0.001 门静脉最大流速(cm/s) 89 24.65±4.33 18.92±4.67 4.62 ＜0.001 门静脉平均流速(cm/s) 89 19.50±6.30 15.19±4.32 5.08 ＜0.001 肝动脉内径(mm) 89 3.76±0.48 3.93±0.85 -2.35 0.019 肝动脉流量(mL) 89 230.01±37.13 358.52±76.20 -4.23 ＜0.001 肝动脉最大流速(cm/s) 89 62.32±18.47 94.30±22.16 -5.84 ＜0.001 肝动脉最小流速(cm/s) 89 17.96±6.14 31.36±6.70 -5.78 ＜0.001 2.3 术后1个月肝血流情况
患者门静脉流量、门静脉最大流速及门静脉平均流速均较术前显著减低(P值均＜0.05)。肝固有动脉流量、最大流速及最小流速均较术前明显升高(P值均＜0.05)。门静脉内径、肝固有动脉内径较术前无明显差异(P值均＞0.05)(表 4)。
表 4 术前和术后1个月肝血流情况比较Table 4. Comparison of hepatic hemodynamics at baseline and 1 month postoperation in liver cirrhosis patients项目 例数 术前 术后1个月 t值 P值 门静脉内径(mm) 81 12.77±1.53 12.37±2.09 1.499 0.141 门静脉流量(mL) 81 1 577.28±190.48 940.82±142.27 5.514 ＜0.001 门静脉最大流速(cm/s) 81 25.49±8.96 16.58±5.43 5.490 ＜0.001 门静脉平均流速(cm/s) 81 19.84±3.96 13.61±5.01 4.870 ＜0.001 肝动脉内径(mm) 81 3.76±0.47 3.87±0.45 -1.055 0.298 肝动脉流量(mL) 81 230.34±59.97 276.48±66.07 -2.691 0.028 肝动脉最大流速(cm/s) 81 62.51±19.66 71.62±12.84 -2.199 0.042 肝动脉最小流速(cm/s) 81 18.25±6.05 23.18±4.28 -3.393 0.002 2.4 术后3个月肝血流情况
患者门静脉内径、门静脉流量、门静脉最大流速及门静脉平均流速均较术前显著减低(P值均＜0.05)。肝固有动脉内径、肝动脉流量、最大流速及最小流速均较术前无显著差异(P值均＞0.05)(表 5)。
表 5 术前、术后3个月肝血流情况比较Table 5. Comparison of hepatic hemodynamics at baseline and 3 month postoperation in liver cirrhosis patients项目 例数 术前 术后3个月 t值 P值 门静脉内径(mm) 79 12.88±1.62 12.16±1.71 2.55 0.016 门静脉流量(mL) 79 1 497.90±161.76 1 030.76±174.13 3.70 0.001 门静脉最大流速(cm/s) 79 23.27±4.12 16.99±4.97 4.25 ＜0.001 门静脉平均流速(cm/s) 79 18.15±4.85 14.27±4.67 -3.23 0.003 肝动脉内径(mm) 79 3.79±0.47 3.85±0.43 -0.68 0.502 肝动脉流量(mL) 79 230.90±47.13 201.68±36.45 1.27 0.213 肝动脉最大流速(cm/s) 79 61.10±18.07 58.51±16.63 0.62 0.535 肝动脉最小流速(cm/s) 79 18.60±6.36 17.09±5.29 1.07 0.292 2.5 术后6个月肝血流情况
患者门静脉内径、门静脉流量、门静脉最大流速及门静脉平均流速均较术前显著减低(P值均＜0.05)。肝固有动脉内径较术前显著增加(P＜0.05)。肝动脉流量、最大流速及最小流速均较术前无统计学差异(P值均＞0.05)(表 6)。
表 6 术前、术后6个月肝血流情况比较Table 6. Comparison of hepatic hemodynamics at baseline and 6 month postoperation in liver cirrhosis patients项目 例数 术前 术后6个月 t值 P值 门静脉内径(mm) 77 12.89±1.49 12.09±1.87 2.59 0.015 门静脉流量(mL) 77 1 568.64±220.48 933.00±182.94 4.17 0.002 门静脉最大流速(cm/s) 77 23.92±7.21 17.73±5.39 3.83 0.001 门静脉平均流速(cm/s) 77 18.91±7.21 14.75±4.72 2.92 0.006 肝动脉内径(mm) 77 3.65±0.47 3.95±0.49 -2.69 0.012 肝动脉流量(mL) 77 218.33±17.13 219.05±46.11 -0.04 0.962 肝动脉最大流速(cm/s) 77 63.15±8.50 66.86±20.83 -0.74 0.460 肝动脉最小流速(cm/s) 77 17.82±5.65 18.90±7.92 -0.65 0.519 2.6 术后12个月肝血流情况
患者门静脉内径、门静脉流量、门静脉最大流速及门静脉平均流速均较术前显著减低(P值均＜0.05)。肝固有动脉内径、流量、最大流速及最小流速均较术前无明显差异(P值均＞0.05)(表 7)。
表 7 术前、术后12个月肝血流情况比较Table 7. Comparison of hepatic hemodynamics at baseline and 12 month postoperation in liver cirrhosis patients项目 例数 术前 术后12个月 t值 P值 门静脉内径(mm) 64 12.83±1.62 11.96±1.10 3.11 0.004 门静脉流量(mL) 64 1 649.60±123.48 937.64±181.42 4.32 ＜0.001 门静脉最大流速(cm/s) 64 25.63±4.17 18.19±4.73 4.14 ＜0.001 门静脉平均流速(cm/s) 64 19.84±3.78 15.45±4.13 3.09 0.005 肝动脉内径(mm) 64 3.71±0.44 3.73±0.50 -0.13 0.895 肝动脉流量(mL) 64 210.82±55.06 202.97±71.50 0.35 0.729 肝动脉最大流速(cm/s) 64 60.89±10.22 64.19±11.92 -0.88 0.386 肝动脉最小流速(cm/s) 64 17.90±4.26 17.16±5.21 0.511 0.613 2.7 术后24个月肝血流情况
患者门静脉内径、门静脉流量、门静脉最大流速及门静脉平均流速均较术前显著减低(P值均＜0.05)。肝固有动脉内径、流量、最大流速及最小流速均较术前无明显差异(P值均＞0.05)(表 8)。
表 8 术前、术后24个月肝血流情况比较Table 8. Comparison of hepatic hemodynamics at baseline and 24 month postoperation in liver cirrhosis patients项目 例数 术前 术后24个月 t值 P值 门静脉内径(mm) 60 12.72±1.23 11.23±1.44 2.44 0.016 门静脉流量(mL) 60 1 554.73±171.48 910.47±122.28 2.47 0.015 门静脉最大流速(cm/s) 60 21.22±4.96 15.21±3.73 3.32 0.001 门静脉平均流速(cm/s) 60 19.16±3.08 14.55±3.23 2.82 0.006 肝动脉内径(mm) 60 3.70±0.45 3.66±0.44 0.12 0.906 肝动脉流量(mL) 60 224.91±17.70 219.33±16.33 -0.08 0.934 肝动脉最大流速(cm/s) 60 63.98±10.68 64.58±19.00 -0.37 0.706 肝动脉最小流速(cm/s) 60 19.40±6.78 18.09±7.42 -0.46 0.651 3. 讨论
肝硬化通常合并门静脉高压症，这是门静脉血流阻力增加和门静脉流入增加的结果[3]，由于肝脏是肝固有动脉和门静脉双重供血，同时肝固有动脉和脾动脉均由腹腔干发出，因此肝固有动脉、门静脉、脾动脉的血流动力学之间存在密切联系。门静脉高压症患者的内脏血流动力学紊乱已经得到证实，Zeng等[4]报道肝硬化门静脉高压症患者脾动脉/肝固有动脉内径比值异常的发生率较高，可作为内脏血流动力学紊乱的重要指标。而脾动脉半径和门静脉压力以及脾切除术后门静脉压力降低的程度之间存在关联[5]，长时间的门静脉压力升高，可能引起上消化出血，显著减低患者生存率，部分患者会出现门静脉系统血栓，进一步加重门静脉高压症，使肝功能恶化，甚至死亡[6-7]，而脾切除门奇静脉断流术是治疗门静脉高压导致食管胃曲张静脉出血的主要选择之一[8]。
在我国脾切除门奇静脉断流术多是限期或者急诊手术[9]，术后并发症低，而且对肝功能有改善作用[10]。本研究中有4例术前Child-Pugh C级患者，均为因门静脉高压症导致的食管胃底曲张静脉破裂出血而行急诊手术，术前肝功能较差，而患者术后Child-Pugh评分恢复至A级或B级。此外术后患者外周血中透明质酸升高，Ⅲ型前胶原氨基末端前肽、Ⅳ型胶原降低也提示肝硬化门静脉高压症患者在脾切除门奇静脉断流术后肝硬化得到了逆转[2, 11]，同时门静脉流量减少以及肝动脉流量增加也是术后内脏血流动力学改变之一[12]，但由于数据量少且缺少长期随访，对于其动态变化并不了解，本研究观察脾切除门奇静脉断流患者术前以及术后短期、长期的肝固有动脉及门静脉内径、流量、流速的改变，从而了解肝脏内血流的动态变化。
Huang等[2]发现与健康对照组相比，因门静脉高压症行脾切除门奇静脉断流术患者术后1周其门静脉内径、流量均明显高于健康对照组，门静脉最大流速较低，而与术前相比，肝固有动脉的最大流速和血流量均较术前显著升高，与其不同的是，本研究对比行脾切除门奇静脉断流术患者术前及术后的内脏血流改变，而非与健康对照组比较，更有利于了解术后和术前的血流变化差异，在术后1周时，也发现肝固有动脉的内径、流量、最大流速及最小流速均较术前显著增加，这种变化仅仅维持到术后1个月，而到术后3个月后，肝固有动脉的流量、最大流速及最小流速则恢复至术前水平，该结果在其他研究中未见报道。
曾道炳团队等[4, 13]也发现脾切除门奇静脉断流术能够降低门静脉血流量和门静脉压力，伴有肝固有动脉流速、流量增加，此外，与健康人群的脾动脉内径/肝固有动脉内径(脾动脉/肝固有动脉)的比值相比，门静脉高压症患者的比值明显升高，证实存在内脏动力学紊乱，同时也对门静脉高压症的并发症有预测作用，研究结果还显示脾切除术后肝功能改善，而这一改变可能与术后血流动力学改变有关。本研究结果显示肝固有动脉的血流动力学改变比较短暂，而门静脉血流改变很持久，门静脉流量、流速以及内径等指标在术后1周开始就明显降低，之后持续保持在较低的水平。
本研究动态显示了行脾切除门奇静脉断流患者手术前、后肝固有动脉及门静脉的血流动力学变化，以患者术前的结果作为参考，比较术后血流变化，不仅呈现术后早期的及变化特点，而且发现了长期的变化规律，尤其是肝固有动脉的血流变化仅仅维持1个月，而在术后3个月后则恢复至术前水平，这一变化与术后门静脉血流量和流速持续降低不同，这种变化为临床更好的研究脾切除门奇静脉断流术后的肝功能变化、肝硬度变化、门静脉系统血栓形成等方面提供了血流动力学方面的支持，为提高患者生活质量、改善预后提供帮助。
-
图 1 TyG、TyG联合BMI及TyG联合WC预测OSA患者发生NAFLD的ROC曲线
Figure 1. ROC curve of TyG、TyG combined with BMI and TyG combined with WC for predicting NAFLD in OSA patients
表 1 两组患者临床资料比较
Table 1. Comparison of the clinical characteristics between OSA patients with and without NAFLD
指标 对照组
(n=83)OSA合并NAFLD
(n=107)统计值 P值 男性[例(%)] 48(57.8) 69(64.5) χ2=0.875 0.350 年龄(岁) 58.05±12.99 53.22±13.37 t=2.498 0.013 BMI(kg/m2) 23.94±3.59 27.77±3.63 t=-7.236 ＜0.001 颈围(cm) 37.00(35.00~40.00) 40.00(37.00~43.00) Z=-4.396 ＜0.001 WC(cm) 88.00(84.00~96.00) 102.00(93.50~107.00) Z=-6.786 ＜0.001 AHI(次/h) 32.50(24.60~50.10) 40.60(29.95~64.55) Z=-2.916 0.004 ODI 24.70(13.50~38.30) 37.30(19.00~56.05) Z=-2.977 0.003 LSaO2(%) 79.00(72.00~81.00) 75.00(66.00~79.00) Z=-2.694 0.007 Average SpO2(%) 91.10(88.50~92.30) 89.50(87.60~90.80) Z=-3.567 ＜0.001 ALT(U/L) 17.00(12.00~25.00) 21.00(17.00~36.50) Z=-3.933 ＜0.001 AST(U/L) 19.00(16.00~24.00) 20.00(16.00~27.00) Z=-0.703 0.482 ALP(U/L) 78.00(62.00~90.00) 75.00(64.50~91.00) Z=-0.748 0.455 GGT(U/L) 24.00(17.00~39.00) 36.00(26.00~55.00) Z=-4.168 ＜0.001 TC(mmol/L) 4.17(3.63~5.28) 4.55(3.75~5.23) Z=-1.178 0.239 TG(mmol/L) 1.28(0.90~2.03) 1.84(1.35~2.52) Z=-4.397 ＜0.001 HDL-C(mmol/L) 1.12(0.91~1.30) 0.97(0.85~1.11) Z=-3.506 ＜0.001 LDL-C(mmol/L) 2.59(2.25~3.41) 2.89(2.40~3.52) Z=-1.411 0.158 FPG(mmol/L) 4.99(4.56~5.83) 5.59(4.96~6.78) Z=-3.012 0.003 TyG 8.69±0.67 9.13±0.59 t=-4.771 ＜0.001 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 OSA患者发生NAFLD影响因素的二元logistic回归分析
Table 2. Binary logistic regression analysis of factors influencing the occurrence of NAFLD in OSA patients
指标 Β值 标准误 Wald OR 95%CI P值 年龄(岁) -0.007 0.016 0.164 0.993 0.96~1.03 0.685 BMI(kg/m2) 0.185 0.079 5.455 1.203 1.03~1.41 0.020 颈围(cm) -0.094 0.070 1.801 0.910 0.79~1.04 0.180 WC(cm) 0.071 0.032 4.951 1.074 1.01~1.14 0.026 AHI(次/h) 0.016 0.020 0.630 1.016 0.98~1.06 0.428 ODI 0.003 0.018 0.031 1.003 0.97~1.04 0.860 LSaO2(%) 0.020 0.031 0.407 1.020 0.96~1.08 0.524 Average SpO2(%) 0.064 0.062 1.077 1.066 0.94~1.2 0.299 ALT(U/L) 0.004 0.017 0.055 1.004 0.97~1.04 0.814 GGT(U/L) 0.006 0.008 0.559 1.006 0.99~1.02 0.455 HDL-C(mmol/L) -0.765 0.906 0.713 0.465 0.08~2.75 0.398 TyG 0.674 0.328 4.229 1.961 1.03~3.73 0.040
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 TyG、TyG联合BMI及TyG联合WC对OSA患者发生NAFLD的预测价值
Table 3. Predictive value of TyG, TyG combined with BMI and TyG combined with WC for OSA patients with NAFLD
指标 最佳截断点 AUC
(95%CI)P值 敏感度
(%)特异度
(%)阳性似然比 阴性似然比 约登指数 TyG 8.72 0.696(0.625~0.760) ＜0.001 77.57 56.63 1.79 0.40 0.3420 TyG联合BMI 0.36 0.787(0.722~0.843) ＜0.001 92.52 50.60 1.87 0.15 0.4313 TyG联合WC 0.60 0.803(0.739~0.857) ＜0.001 69.16 78.31 3.19 0.39 0.4747
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] BENJAFIELD AV, AYAS NT, EASTWOOD PR, et al. Estimation of the global prevalence and burden of obstructive sleep apnoea: a literature-based analysis[J]. Lancet Respir Med, 2019, 7(8): 687-698. DOI: 10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30198-5. [2] YOUNOSSI ZM, KOENIG AB, ABDELATIF D, et al. Global epidemiology of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease-Meta-analytic assessment of prevalence, incidence, and outcomes[J]. Hepatology, 2016, 64(1): 73-84. DOI: 10.1002/hep.28431. [3] UMBRO I, FABIANI V, FABIANI M, et al. Association between non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and obstructive sleep apnea[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2020, 26(20): 2669-2681. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i20.2669. [4] KHAN SH, SOBIA F, NIAZI NK, et al. Metabolic clustering of risk factors: evaluation of Triglyceride-glucose index (TyG index) for evaluation of insulin resistance[J]. Diabetol Metab Syndr, 2018, 10: 74. DOI: 10.1186/s13098-018-0376-8. [5] SONG K, LEE HW, CHOI HS, et al. Comparison of the Modified TyG indices and other parameters to predict non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in youth[J]. Biology (Basel), 2022, 11(5): 685. DOI: 10.3390/biology11050685. [6] Sleep Medicine Committee of Chinese Medical Doctor Association. Guidelines for multidisciplinary diagnosis and treatment of adult obstructive sleep apnea[J]. Natl Med J China, 2018, 98(24): 1902-1914. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0376-2491.2018.24.003.中国医师协会睡眠医学专业委员会. 成人阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停多学科诊疗指南[J]. 中华医学杂志, 2018, 98(24): 1902-1914. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0376-2491.2018.24.003. [7] National Workshop on Fatty Liver and Alcoholic Liver Disease, Chinese Society of Hepatology, Chinese Medical Association; Fatty Liver Expen Committee, Chinese Medical Doctor Association. Guidelines of prevention and treatment for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A 2018 update[J]. J Clin Hepatol, 2018, 34(5): 947-957. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2018.05.007.中华医学会肝病学分会脂肪肝和酒精性肝病学组, 中国医师协会脂肪性肝病专家委员会. 非酒精性脂肪性肝病防治指南(2018年更新版)[J]. 临床肝胆病杂志, 2018, 34(5): 947-957. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2018.05.007. [8] SIMENTAL-MENDÍA LE, RODRÍGUEZ-MORÁN M, GUERRERO-ROMERO F. The product of fasting glucose and triglycerides as surrogate for identifying insulin resistance in apparently healthy subjects[J]. Metab Syndr Relat Disord, 2008, 6(4): 299-304. DOI: 10.1089/met.2008.0034. [9] DELONG ER, DELONG DM, CLARKE-PEARSON DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach[J]. Biometrics, 1988, 44(3): 837-845. [10] MESARWI OA, LOOMBA R, MALHOTRA A. Obstructive sleep apnea, hypoxia, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease[J]. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2019, 199(7): 830-841. DOI: 10.1164/rccm.201806-1109TR. [11] JIN S, JIANG S, HU A. Association between obstructive sleep apnea and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Sleep Breath, 2018, 22(3): 841-851. DOI: 10.1007/s11325-018-1625-7. [12] CHEN LD, ZHANG LJ, LIN XJ, et al. Association between continuous positive airway pressure and serum aminotransferases in patients with obstructive sleep apnea[J]. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 2018, 275(2): 587-594. DOI: 10.1007/s00405-017-4840-0. [13] CAKMAK E, DUKSAL F, ALTINKAYA E, et al. Association between the severity of nocturnal hypoxia in obstructive sleep apnea and non-alcoholic fatty liver damage[J]. Hepat Mon, 2015, 15(11): e32655. DOI: 10.5812/hepatmon.32655. [14] LIU YR, WEN XH, GAO M, et al. Correlation between atherogenic index of plasma and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in non-obese populations[J]. Clin Misdiagn Misther, 2021, 34(10): 100-104. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-3429.2021.10.021.刘艳如, 温晓华, 高冕, 等. 非肥胖人群血浆致动脉硬化指数与非酒精性脂肪性肝病的相关性[J]. 临床误诊误治, 2021, 34(10): 100-104. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-3429.2021.10.021. [15] BETTINI S, SERRA R, FABRIS R, et al. Association of obstructive sleep apnea with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in patients with obesity: an observational study[J]. Eat Weight Disord, 2021, 27(1): 335-343. DOI: 10.1007/s40519-021-01182-9. [16] FU YM, WANG CY, LI ZB, et al. Diagnostic efficiency of controlled attenuation parameter on hepatic steatosis of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease[J]. Med J Chin PLA, 2022, 47(6): 593-598. DOI: 10.11855/j.issn.0577-7402.2022.06.0593.付懿铭, 王春艳, 李忠斌, 等. 受控衰减参数对非酒精性脂肪性肝病患者肝脂肪变性分级的诊断价值[J]. 解放军医学杂志, 2022, 47(6): 593-598. DOI: 10.11855/j.issn.0577-7402.2022.06.0593. [17] STAREKOVA J, HERNANDO D, PICKHARDT PJ, et al. Quantification of liver fat content with CT and MRI: State of the art[J]. Radiology, 2021, 301(2): 250-262. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2021204288. [18] ER LK, WU S, CHOU HH, et al. Triglyceride glucose-body mass index is a simple and clinically useful surrogate marker for insulin resistance in nondiabetic individuals[J]. PLoS One, 2016, 11(3): e0149731. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149731. [19] LEE SB, KIM MK, KANG S, et al. Triglyceride glucose index is superior to the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance for predicting nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in Korean adults[J]. Endocrinol Metab (Seoul), 2019, 34(2): 179-186. DOI: 10.3803/EnM.2019.34.2.179. [20] KIM HS, CHO YK, KIM EH, et al. Triglyceride glucose-waist circumference is superior to the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance in identifying nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in healthy subjects[J]. J Clin Med, 2021, 11(1): 41. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11010041. [21] KHAMSEH ME, MALEK M, ABBASI R, et al. Triglyceride glucose index and related parameters (triglyceride glucose-body mass index and triglyceride glucose-waist circumference) identify nonalcoholic fatty liver and liver fibrosis in individuals with overweight/obesity[J]. Metab Syndr Relat Disord, 2021, 19(3): 167-173. DOI: 10.1089/met.2020.0109. [22] FERRAIOLI G, SOARES MONTEIRO LB. Ultrasound-based techniques for the diagnosis of liver steatosis[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2019, 25(40): 6053-6062. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i40.6053. 期刊类型引用(1)
1. 李芷西，黄少坚，贺卓，黄嘉明，张起帆，周杰，王恺. 乙肝肝硬化门静脉高压症脾切除术后腹腔积液预测模型. 肝胆胰外科杂志. 2023(12): 736-741+746 . 
百度学术其他类型引用(1)
-
下载:
百度学术
