Ratio (95% CI) of annual progression rates of coronary artery calcium score by categories of fatty liver at baseline (n=23 320)
| Ratio of annual progression rates* | Categories of fatty liver | |||
| No excessive alcohol intake and no FLD | Excessive alcohol intake and no FLD | NAFLD | AFLD | |
| Number | 9854 | 2406 | 8678 | 2382 |
| Overall (n=23 320) | ||||
| Annual rate of CAC progression | 1.0511 (1.0470–1.0552) | 1.0821 (1.0719–1.0925) | 1.0918 (1.0860–1.0977) | 1.1231 (1.1101–1.1354) |
| Ratio of annual progression rates* | ||||
| Model 1 | 1.0 (reference) | 1.0295 (1.0190–1.0402) | 1.0388 (1.0320–1.0457) | 1.0687 (1.0563–1.0811) |
| Model 2 | 1.0 (reference) | 1.0297 (1.0191–1.0404) | 1.0390 (1.0321–1.0459) | 1.0688 (1.0565–1.0813) |
| Model 3 | 1.0 (reference) | 1.0297 (1.0191–1.0404) | 1.0390 (1.0321–1.0459) | 1.0688 (1.0565–1.0813) |
| Non-obese (BMI <25 kg/m2) (n=13 038) | ||||
| Annual rate of CAC progression | 1.0478 (1.0433–1.0523) | 1.0701 (1.0587–1.0816) | 1.0754 (1.0670–1.0838) | 1.1101 (1.0882–1.1325) |
| Ratio of annual progression rates* | ||||
| Model 1 | 1.0 (reference) | 1.0213 (1.0096–1.0331) | 1.0264 (1.0172–1.0356) | 1.0596 (1.0382–1.0814) |
| Model 2 | 1.0 (reference) | 1.0213 (1.0096–1.0331) | 1.0264 (1.0172–1.0356) | 1.0596 (1.0382–1.0814) |
| Model 3 | 1.0 (reference) | 1.0213 (1.0096–1.0331) | 1.0264 (1.0172–1.0356) | 1.0596 (1.0382–1.0814) |
| Obese (BMI ≥25 kg/m2) (n=10 282) | ||||
| Annual rate of CAC progression | 1.0645 (1.0545–1.0745) | 1.1084 (1.0875–1.1298) | 1.1008 (1.0930–1.1086) | 1.1287 (1.1140–1.1435) |
| Ratio of annual progression rates* | ||||
| Model 1 | 1.0 (reference) | 1.0413 (1.0193–1.0637) | 1.0341 (1.0221–1.0464) | 1.0604 (1.0435–1.0776) |
| Model 2 | 1.0 (reference) | 1.0418 (1.0199–1.0643) | 1.0344 (1.0223–1.0466) | 1.0606 (1.0436–1.0778) |
| Model 3 | 1.0 (reference) | 1.0418 (1.0199–1.0643) | 1.0344 (1.0223–1.0466) | 1.0606 (1.0436–1.0778) |
*Estimated from linear mixed models with random intercept and random slopes used with natural log(CAC+1) as the outcome and inverse probability weighting. Multivariable model ’ was adjusted for age and sex; model 2: model 1 plus adjustment for centre, year of screening exam, BMI, smoking status, physical activity, educational level, total calorie intake, family history of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, LDL-cholesterol and medication for dyslipidaemia; model 3: model 2 plus adjustment for hsCRP and HOMA-IR.
AFLD, alcoholic fatty liver disease; BMI, body mass index; CAC, coronary artery calcium; FLD, fatty liver disease; HOMA-IR, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance; hsCRP, high-sensitivity C reactive protein; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; NAFLD, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease;