|Year : 2020 | Volume
| Issue : 4 | Page : 235-238
Ultrasonographic features associated with diffuse hepatosteatosis among diabetic obese and normal body mass index patients
Mahjabeen Liaqat, Mehreen Fatima, Sajid Shaheen Malik, Syed Amir Gillani, Iqra Manzoor
University Institute of Radiological Sciences and Medical Imaging Technology, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan
|Date of Submission||04-Oct-2019|
|Date of Decision||09-Jan-2020|
|Date of Acceptance||06-Mar-2020|
|Date of Web Publication||18-May-2020|
Dr. Mahjabeen Liaqat
M.phil (Medical Ultrasound Technology) Department and Institution: University Institute of Radiological Sciences and Medical Imaging Technology, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, University of Lahore, Lahore
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Background: The purpose of the study is to evaluate and compare the changes associated with hepatosteatosis in diabetic obese versus diabetic normal-weight patients through ultrasonography. It is estimated that with the prevalence of about 30%–75% of obese individuals accordingto the body mass index (BMI) criteria are at increase risk of developing simple fatty live. Besides obesity, diabetes mellitus is also considered to be one of the important causes of hepatosteatosis. Methods: This prospective study was conducted in February 2015–December 2015 on a group of 181 diabetic patients, including 65 males and 116 females with an age range of 40–80 years. The patients were divided into two diabetic groups: those having a BMI ≥30 kg/m2 were included in the obese group (n = 116) and those with a BMI of 18.5–25 kg/m2 were included in the normal BMI group (n = 65). Ultrasound machine Esaote MyLab 50 equipped with a 3.5–5 MHz curvilinear multifrequency transducer was used to scan the liver. Independent samples t-test was performed to compare the liver span in the two groups. Chi-square tests were applied to compare the frequencies of fatty changes, border, and surface characteristics. Results: The presence of fatty changes among obese groups was statistically significant in the diabetic obese group compared to the normal-weight individuals with P < 0.0001. Similarly, hepatic spans were found to be significantly greater in the diabetic obese group than the diabetic normal BMI group on independent samples t-test with P < 0.0001. Females were seen to develop hepatosteatosis more frequently compared to males in all diabetic individuals with P = 0.02. Conclusion: It is concluded that diabetic obese patients are more prone to develop hepatosteatosis as compared to normal BMI diabetic individuals.
Keywords: Diabetes, hepatosteatosis, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity
|How to cite this article:|
Liaqat M, Fatima M, Malik SS, Gillani SA, Manzoor I. Ultrasonographic features associated with diffuse hepatosteatosis among diabetic obese and normal body mass index patients. J Med Ultrasound 2020;28:235-8
|How to cite this URL:|
Liaqat M, Fatima M, Malik SS, Gillani SA, Manzoor I. Ultrasonographic features associated with diffuse hepatosteatosis among diabetic obese and normal body mass index patients. J Med Ultrasound [serial online] 2020 [cited 2022 Oct 2];28:235-8. Available from: http://www.jmuonline.org/text.asp?2020/28/4/235/284501
| Introduction|| |
Hepatosteatosis or fatty infiltration of the liver in itself is characterized by intracellular deposition of excess triglycerides within hepatocytes, which is now exceedingly been termed as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) when occurs in the absence of excessive alcohol consumption.,, The condition is known to be extremely prevalent in obese and diabetic patients.,,, Although fatty liver disease is usually asymptomatic, patient's clinical history including alcohol abuse, chemotherapy, diabetes mellitus (DM), elevated liver function test (alanine aminotransferase, aspartate transaminase, and gamma-glutamyl transferase), pregnancy, and obesity is usually present. Severe fatty infiltration leads to hepatomegaly coupled with inflammation and fibrosis. It is extremely prevalent in obese and diabetic patients.,,,,
Studies found that body mass index (BMI) is one of the most classical epidemiological indexes assessing obesity and it is associated with the risk of fatty liver.,, As compared with the normal BMI, the risk of fatty liver was approximately 4.1–14-fold increase in higher BMI. Although a number of studies reported the association between BMI and fatty liver disease, previous studies were mostly limited to dividing the BMI into categorical variables (underweight, normal, overweight, and obesity).,,
An ultrasound of the liver is an easy way to detect and evaluate fatty liver both qualitatively and quantitatively. On ultrasound, fatty change in the liver caused it to appear bright and echogenic as compare to renal cortex [Figure 1]. The finding is due to increased ultrasound beam reflection from accumulated fatty droplets. Posterior attenuation of the ultrasound beams with impairment of visualization of hepatic and portal veins, bile ducts, gallbladder walls, and diaphragm is an additional ultrasound finding., Important quantitative techniques such as sonographic hepatorenal index (SHRI) and controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) have been introduced to assist the evaluation of hepatosteatosis.
|Figure 1: Ultrasound scans show hepatosteatosis in diagram. Echogenicity of the liver parenchyma is hyperechoic in comparison with echogenicity of renal parenchyma|
Click here to view
The findings of ultrasound have been reported to be highly reliable. A sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 90% were reported with fatty changes as low as ≥20% found out on histopathological assessment. Ultrasound also has several other advantages of being easy to perform and interpret, widely available, and less costly. Other imaging techniques such as computed tomography or magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with chemical shift imaging, MR elastography, and spectroscopy to provide an estimation of hepatic fat content also show similar diagnostic characteristics, but are more expensive.,,,, Biopsy, however, is considered as the gold standard for the diagnosis of hepatosteatosis., It, however, has its own risks and limitations of being invasive, painful, possibility of bleeding, etc. Various studies showed that raised BMI was an independent risk factor for hepatosteatosis.,,, Therefore, the current study plan incorporates both the factors (diabetes and BMI) together to evaluate for hepatosteatosis using ultrasound as an investigating modality.
| Materials and Methods|| |
A comparative, analytical study was conducted in February 2015–December 2015 after approval from the ethical review board of the institution (IRB Reference Number = IRB-UOL/150816/0A45; IRB Number = 1046). Written informed consent was taken from all the patients.
The study was conducted on patients having diabetes for at least 5 years duration, confirmed from their previous clinical record. These patients came to the ultrasound clinic for abdominal ultrasound with complaints other than involving hepatic pathologies. The patients were categorized into two groups: first having normal BMI, comprised those individuals who were having a BMI in the range of 18.5–25 kg/m2, and those having a BMI ≥30 kg/m2 were included in the obese group. BMI was calculated using the formula of weight in kilograms (kg) divided by height in meters squared (m2). Nondiabetic individuals, cirrhotic patients, patients with disrupt corticomedullary ratio of kidneys, cystic liver disease, and liver fibrosis were excluded from the study.
A total of 181 diabetic patients including 65 males and 116 females with an age range of 40–80 years (mean: 51.7 years) were included in the study. Ultrasound examinations were done blindly about the patient condition using Esoate MyLab 50 ultrasound machine equipped with a 3.5–5MHz curvilinear multifrequency transducer by a radiologist having 10 years of experience.
The right and left lobes of the liver were imaged using intercostal/subcostal approach and anterior subxiphoid approach with the patient in the left posterior oblique position or left lateral decubitus position for the left lobe, so that the liver moves slightly medial and inferior. The assessment was made in both sagittal and transverse planes with deep inspiration. Liver length, parenchymal echogenicity, and surface and border characteristics were assessed in all cases. The hepatosteatosis was diagnosed in the liver having increased parenchymal echogenicity compared to the cortex of the kidney.
Independent samples t-test was performed to compare the liver span in the two groups. Chi-square tests were applied to compare the frequencies of fatty changes, border, and surface characteristics. A two-sided P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. An area under the curve was also calculated for the hepatic span between the two groups which showed sensitivity and specificity.
| Results|| |
The distribution of diabetic normal BMI and diabetic obese patients in male and female is given in [Table 1]. The average liver span was found to be 14.2 ± 1.81 cm in diabetic normal-weight and 15.3 ± 1.43 cm in diabetic obese patients. It was significantly greater in the diabetic obese group than the normal BMI group on independent samples t-test with P < 0.0001 [Table 2] and [Figure 2]. An area under the curve was also calculated for the hepatic span between the two groups, which showed a sensitivity and specificity of 68% and 69% with a hepatic span of 14 cm as a cutoff value. It also showed P < 0.0001 [Figure 3]. Out of 181 diabetic patients, 104 (57.5%) showed fatty liver associated with hyperechoic hepatic parenchyma on ultrasound. Females were seen to develop hepatosteatosis more frequently compared to males in all diabetic individuals with P value of 0.02 using Chi-square test [Table 1] and [Table 3]. The presence of fatty changes among diabetic obese group was statistically significant compared to normal-weight individuals with P = 0.0001 compared using Chi-square test. The presence of bumpy hepatic surface and irregular borders was seen only in four and three patients, respectively, with fatty changes in the liver without any significant statistical difference in the two groups.
|Table 1: Descriptive statistics of patientfs variables in diabetic normal-weight and diabetic obese group|
Click here to view
|Table 2: Comparison of hepatic spans in the two diabetic groups (normal weight and obese)|
Click here to view
|Figure 2: Box and whisker plot represents the hepatic length (cm) of diabetic normal-weight (body mass index: 18.5–25 kg/m2) and diabetic obese (body mass index: ≥30 kg/m2) patients. Boxes represent the lines at lower, median, and upper quartile values, while the whiskere show the extent of remaining data, excluding only the outliers|
Click here to view
|Figure 3: Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis shows the sensitivity of 68.10% and specificity of 69.23% for hepatic length of 14 cm with P value of < 0.0001|
Click here to view
|Table 3: Comparison of liver parenchymal changes in male and female patients|
Click here to view
| Discussion|| |
Our results clearly indicated a higher degree of risk, associated with obesity, of developing hepatosteatosis in diabetic individuals. In our understanding, the reason for this accentuated risk might be increased insulin resistance known to occur in obesity. Progressive obesity and ectopic fat deposits in the body cause disturbance in the lipid metabolism and result in insulin resistance. Elevated availability of circulating free fatty acid levels occurs which is partly related to diminished suppression of adipose tissue lipolysis by insulin and consequently liver synthesizes triglycerides., The liver damage eventually results from a combination of oxidative stress and aberrant inflammatory response of the hepatocytes, which initiates apoptosis.
It has also been suggested by Bhatt and Smith that insulin resistance in the context of obesity occurs in a state of continuous intake of excessive amount of calories. They recommended that maintaining a healthy lifestyle with weight reduction and balanced calorie-restricted diet in combination with exercise can reverse the usual course of NAFLD.
De Moura Almeida et al. reported that the reliability of ultrasound decreases as obesity becomes more and more severe. The reason suggested was the deposition of more and more layers of fat in the abdominal wall affecting the image quality and causing technical difficulties in the performance of the sonographic examination. We did not account for these effects in our study, as we did not further subgroup our obese population into moderately obese and severely obese groups. This pitfall of ultrasound imaging, however, exists but may vary according to the operator and ultrasound equipment used.
In this study, females were seen to have fatty liver significantly more than males, which when compared using Chi-square test yielded the P value of 0.0217. This result differed slightly from the report of Suzuki and Abdelmalek. who suggested that men are more prone to develop fatty liver disease compared to women, but they also mentioned that the underlying mechanisms for gender differences are very complex and multifactorial. The women who are described to be hormonally protected premenopausally lose this protection after menopause and get more prone to deposit fat in subcutaneous as well as in viscera. In our study, the fact that all patients were above 40 years of age explains the cause of women having more fatty liver than men.
Although there have been few reported instances with increase risk of hepatosteatosis in diabetic individuals with presence of obesity. Our study is unique in a sense that it incorporated both the factors together in a single study population using ultrasound as an investigating modality. In our opinion, however, the study had some limitations such as the sample size for this study should have been bigger. In addition, a normal nondiabetic group should have been added to have a better insight of the risk of development of NAFLD in normal-weight diabetics and obese diabetics.
| Conclusion|| |
Diabetic obese individuals are more prone to develop hepatosteatosis as confirmed by the ultrasound in our study.
Patients with BMI 25–30 kg/m2 were not included in our study because most of the liver's size overlaps in two groups and also DM duration, timing (onset age), severity (high HBA1C >7), and sequence of obesity and DM were in the limitation of our study.
Further researches should made to check DM duration, timing (onset age), and severity (high HBA1C > 7) to know that all of these have a proportional relationship with hepatosteatosis and also to find the sequence of obesity and DM. More researches should be done with large sample size having variables: SHRI and CAP scoring/grading to get the significantly higher results in DM/obese group in comparison with DM/normal BMI group.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Obika M, Noguchi H. Diagnosis and evaluation of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Exp Diabetes Res 2011;2012:1687-5214.
Matteoni CA, Younossi ZM, Gramlich T, Boparai N, Liu YC, McCullough AJ. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A spectrum of clinical and pathological severity. Gastroenterology 1999;116:1413-9.
Bhatt HB, Smith RJ. Fatty liver disease in diabetes mellitus. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 2015;4:101-8.
Dixon JB, Bhathal PS, O'Brien PE. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Predictors of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and liver fibrosis in the severely obese. Gastroenterology 2001;121:91-100.
Ballestri S, Romagnoli D, Nascimbeni F, Francica G, Lonardo A. Role of ultrasound in the diagnosis and treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and its complications. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015;9:603-27.
Patton HM, Lavine JE. Focal fatty liver: More than just a radiographic curiosity? Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y) 2007;3:199-200.
Kneeman JM, Misdraji J, Corey KE. Secondary causes of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2012;5:199-207.
Smith BW, Adams LA. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 2011;48:97-113.
Marchesini G, Brizi M, Bianchi G, Tomassetti S, Bugianesi E, Lenzi M, et al
. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A feature of the metabolic syndrome. Diabetes 2001;50:1844-50.
Niaz A, Ali Z, Nayyar S, Fatima N. Prevalence of NAFLD in healthy and young male individuals. ISRN Gastroenterol 2011;2011:2090-4398.
Nuttall FQ. Body mass index: Obesity, BMI, and health: A critical review. Nutr Today 2015;50:117-28.
Komaroff M. For researchers on obesity: Historical review of extra body weight definitions. J Obes 2016;2016:2090-0708.
Miyake T, Kumagi T, Hirooka M, Furukawa S, Koizumi M, Tokumoto Y, et al
. Body mass index is the most useful predictive factor for the onset of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A community-based retrospective longitudinal cohort study. J Gastroenterol 2013;48:413-22.
Saida T, Fukushima W, Ohfuji S, Kondo K, Matsunaga I, Hirota Y. Effect modification of body mass index and body fat percentage on fatty liver disease in a Japanese population. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;29:128-36.
Wang L, Guo J, Lu J. Risk factor compositions of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease change with body mass index in males and females. Oncotarget 2016;7:35632-42.
Loomis AK, Kabadi S, Preiss D, Hyde C, Bonato V, St Louis M, et al
. Body mass index and risk of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Two electronic health record prospective studies. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2016;101:945-52.
Di Martino M, Koryukova K, Bezzi M, Catalano C. Imaging features of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in children and adolescents. Children 2017;4:73.
Dasarathy S, Dasarathy J, Khiyami A, Joseph R, Lopez R, McCullough AJ. Validity of real time ultrasound in the diagnosis of hepatic steatosis: A prospective study. J Hepatol 2009;51:1061-7.
Khov N, Sharma A, Riley TR. Bedside ultrasound in the diagnosis of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:6821-5.
Saadeh S, Younossi ZM, Remer EM, Gramlich T, Ong JP, Hurley M, et al
. The utility of radiological imaging in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology 2002;123:745-50.
Fishbein M, Castro F, Cheruku S, Jain S, Webb B, Gleason T, et al
. Hepatic MRI for fat quantitation: Its relationship to fat morphology, diagnosis, and ultrasound. J Clin Gastroenterol 2005;39:619-25.
Milic S, Lulic D, Štimac D. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and obesity: Biochemical, metabolic and clinical presentations. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:9330-7.
Baršic N, Lerotic I, Smircic-Duvnjak L, Tomašic V, Duvnjak M. Overview and developments in noninvasive diagnosis of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. World J Gastroenterol 2012;18:3945-54.
Mohamed J, Nazratun Nafizah AH, Zariyantey AH, Budin SB. Mechanisms of diabetes-induced liver damage: The role of oxidative stress and inflammation. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J 2016;16:e132-41.
Williams KH, Shackel NA, Gorrell MD, McLennan SV, Twigg SM. Diabetes and nonalcoholic Fatty liver disease: A pathogenic duo. Endocr Rev 2013;34:84-129.
de Moura Almeida A, Cotrim HP, Barbosa DB, de Athayde LG, Santos AS, Bitencourt AG, et al
. Fatty liver disease in severe obese patients: Diagnostic value of abdominal ultrasound. World J Gastroenterol 2008;14:1415-8.
Suzuki A, Abdelmalek MF. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in women. Womens Health (Lond) 2009;5:191-203.
[Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]