Visceral and subcutaneous abdominal fat is associated with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease while augmenting Metabolic Syndrome’s effect on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: A cross-sectional study of NHANES 2017–2018

Abstract

Background The aim was to evaluate the effect different types of abdominal fat have on NAFLD development and the effects of abdominal fat has on the association between Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) and NALFD. Methods Data was collected from the cross-sectional NHANES dataset (2017–2018 cycle). Using the controlled attenuation parameter (USG CAP, dB/m), which measures the level of steatosis, the cohort was stratified into two groups: NAFLD(+) (≥274 dB/m) and NAFLD(-). Using complex samples analyses, associations between liver steatosis or NAFLD and types of abdominal fat area [Total abdominal (TAFA), subcutaneous (SAT), and visceral (VAT)] were determined. Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was calculated to evaluate the associations between adipose tissues and NAFLD. Logistic regression was used to determine the risk [odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI)]. Participants were also classified by MetS, using the Harmonizing Definition criteria. Results Using 1,980 participants (96,282,896 weighted), there was a significant (p<0.001) correlation between USG CAP and TAFA (r = 0.569), VAT (r = 0.645), and SAT (r = 0.479). Additionally, the risk of developing NAFLD was observed for total abdominal obesity (OR = 19.9, 95%CI: 5.1–77.8, p<0.001), visceral obesity (OR = 9.1, 95%CI: 6.2–13.5, p<0.001) and subcutaneous obesity (OR = 4.8, 95%CI: 3.2–6.9, p<0.001). Using 866 participants (44,399,696 weighted), for visceral obesity, participants with MetS and visceral obesity (OR = 18.1, 95%CI: 8.0–41.3, p<0.001) were shown to have a greater risk than participants with MetS only (OR = 6.3, 95%CI: 2.6–15.2, p<0.001). For subcutaneous obesity, again, participants with MetS and subcutaneous obesity (OR = 18.3, 95%CI: 8.0–41.9, p<0.001) were shown to have a greater risk than the MetS-only group (OR = 10.3, 95%CI: 4.8–22.4, p<0.001). Conclusion TAFA, VAT, and SAT were positively associated with USG CAP values and increased the risk of developing NAFLD. Also, the type of abdominal fat depots did affect the association between MetS and NAFLD.