Table 1.
Patient characteristics according to sex and visceral fat area category (n = 200).
Fig 1.
Hazard ratios of the V/S ratio for the renal prognosis derived from the multivariate Cox proportional hazards analyses according to VFA category (A) and sex (B). The circles represent HRs and the bars represent 95% CIs for the association with the renal prognosis, with an eGFR decline ≥30% or end-stage renal disease as the endpoint (derived from Tables 2 and 3). The P-value for the interaction is derived from Table 2. Abbreviations: V/S ratio, visceral to subcutaneous fat ratio; VFA, visceral fat area; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; P, calculated probability; P-INT, P-value for the interaction.
Table 2.
Results of the univariate and multivariate analyses for the risk factors associated with renal outcomes (i.e., a ≥ 30% estimated glomerular filtration rate decline or end-stage renal disease) among the entire study population (n = 200).
Table 3.
Results of the multivariate analyses for the risk factors associated with disease progression (i.e., a ≥30% estimated glomerular filtration rate decline or end-stage renal disease) according to sex or VFA category.
Fig 2.
Time-series changes in the pseudo-R2 values for the renal outcome in terms of the eGFR.
Pseudo-R2 values for the entire cohort (A), men (B), women (C), patients with VFA <100 cm2 (E), and patients with VFA ≥100 cm2 (F). The lines represent the time-series changes in the pseudo-R2 values for the renal outcome in terms of the eGFR. Dotted lines mark the least-squares regression line from the 6th year to the 10th year. The gray area under the lines represents the 6Y–10Y Mean. (A) Pseudo-R2 values for all cohorts are presented superimposed on those for each sex (D) and VFA category (G). The lines represent the time-series changes in the pseudo-R2 values for the renal outcome in terms of the eGFR for the entire cohort, men, women, patients with VFA <100 cm2, and patients with VFA ≥100 cm2 (shown individually in A–C, E, and F). Abbreviations: eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; VFA, visceral fat area; 6Y–10Y Mean, the mean value of the pseudo-R2 values from the 6th year to the 10th year.
Table 4.
Time-series changes in pseudo-R2 values of the prognostic efficacy for renal outcomes: eGFR (n = 200).
Fig 3.
Time-series changes in the pseudo-R2 values for the renal outcome in terms of each definition of a V/S ratio in the entire cohort.
(A-C): Pseudo-R2 values for all definitions of a high V/S ratio for the entire cohort and each sex are presented superimposed. The lines represent the time-series changes in the pseudo-R2 values for the renal outcome in terms of each definition of a high V/S ratio in the entire cohort (A), men (B), and women (C). (D–F): Pseudo-R2 values in terms of a V/S ratio ≥0.25. (G–I): Pseudo-R2 values in terms of a V/S ratio ≥0.3. (J–L): Pseudo-R2 values in terms of a V/S ratio ≥0.5. (M–O): Pseudo-R2 values in terms of a V/S ratio ≥0.55. (P–R): Pseudo-R2 values in terms of a V/S ratio ≥0.7. (S–U): Pseudo-R2 values in terms of a V/S ratio ≥0.75. (V–X): Pseudo-R2 values in terms of a V/S ratio ≥1.0. (Y–AA): Pseudo-R2 values in terms of a V/S ratio ≥1.25. Dotted lines mark the least-squares regression line from the 6th year to the 10th year. The gray area under the lines represents the 6Y–10Y Mean. Abbreviations: V/S ratio, visceral to subcutaneous fat ratio; 6Y–10Y Mean, the mean value of the pseudo-R2 values from the 6th year to the 10th year.
Table 5.
Time-series changes in pseudo-R2 values of the prognostic efficacy for renal outcomes in terms of the V/S ratio in the entire cohort.
Fig 4.
Time-series changes in the pseudo-R2 values for the renal outcome in terms of each definition of a high V/S ratio in the sub-cohort of patients with VFA <100 cm2.
(A-C): Pseudo-R2 values for all definitions of a high V/S ratio for the entire sub-cohort and each sex are presented superimposed. The lines represent the time-series changes in the pseudo-R2 values for the renal outcome in terms of each definition of a high V/S ratio for the entire sub-cohort (A), the sub-cohort of men with VFA <100 cm2 (B), and the sub-cohort of women with VFA <100 cm2 (C). (D–F): Pseudo-R2 values in terms of a V/S ratio ≥0.25. (G–I): Pseudo-R2 values in terms of a V/S ratio ≥0.3. (J–L): Pseudo-R2 values in terms of a V/S ratio ≥0.5. (M–O): Pseudo-R2 values in terms of a V/S ratio ≥0.55. (P–R): Pseudo-R2 values in terms of a V/S ratio ≥0.7. (S–U): Pseudo-R2 values in terms of a V/S ratio ≥0.75. (V–X): Pseudo-R2 values in terms of a V/S ratio ≥1.0. (Y–AA): Pseudo-R2 values in terms of a V/S ratio ≥1.25. Dotted lines mark the least-squares regression line from the 6th year to the 10th year. The gray area under the lines represents the 6Y–10Y Mean. Abbreviations: V/S ratio, visceral to subcutaneous fat ratio; 6Y–10Y Mean, the mean value of the pseudo-R2 values from the 6th year to the 10th year.
Fig 5.
Kaplan–Meier survival curves of the renal prognosis stratified by a V/S ratio ≥0.75, and a V/S ratio ≥0.5 for five cohorts: the entire cohort (A, D), men (B), men with VFA <100 cm2 (C), women (E), and women with VFA <100 cm2 (F). The renal prognosis for patients meeting any of the V/S ratio criteria is poor. Abbreviations: V/S ratio, visceral to subcutaneous fat ratio; VFA, visceral fat area; P, calculated probability.