Usefulness of Body Fat and Visceral Fat Determined by Bioimpedanciometry versus Body Mass Index and Waist Circumference in Predicting Elevated Values of Different Risk Scales for Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

Background: Obesity constitutes a public health problem worldwide and causes non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (MALFD), the leading cause of liver disease in developed countries, which progresses to liver cirrhosis and liver cancer. MAFLD is associated with obesity and can be evaluated by validated formulas to assess MAFLD risk using different parameters such as the body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC). However, these parameters do not accurately measure body fat. As MAFLD is strongly associated with obesity, we hypothesize that measuring body and visceral fat by electrical bioimpedance is an efficient method to predict the risk of MAFLD. The objective of our work was to demonstrate that electrical bioimpedance is a more efficient method than the BMI or WC to predict an elevated risk of MAFLD. Methods: A cross-sectional, descriptive study involving 8590 Spanish workers in the Balearic Islands was carried out. The study’s sample of employees was drawn from those who underwent occupational medicine examinations between January 2019 and December 2020. Five MAFLD risk scales were determined for evaluating very high levels of body fat and visceral fat. The determination of body and visceral fat was performed using bioimpedanciometry. Student’s t-test was employed to ascertain the mean and standard deviation of quantitative data. The chi-square test was used to find prevalences for qualitative variables, while ROC curves were used to define the cut-off points for body and visceral fat. The calculations included the area under the curve (AUC), the cut-off points along with their Youden index, sensitivity, and specificity. Correlation and concordance between the various scales were determined using Pearson’s correlation index and Cohen’s kappa, respectively. Results: As both total body fat and visceral fat increase, the risk of MAFLD increases with a statistically significant result (p < 0.001), presenting a higher risk in men. The areas under the curve (AUC) of the five scales that assess overweight and obesity to determine the occurrence of high values of the different MAFLD risk scales were very high, most of them exceeding 0.9. These AUC values were higher for visceral and body fat than for the BMI or waist circumference. FLD-high presented the best results in men and women with the AUC at around 0.97, both for visceral fat and total body fat, with a high Youden index in all cases (women body fat = 0.830, visceral fat = 0.892; men body fat = 0.780, visceral fat = 0.881). Conclusions: In our study, all the overweight and obesity scales show a very good association with the scales assessing the risk of MAFLD. These values are higher for visceral and body fat than for waist circumference and the BMI. Both visceral fat and body fat are better associated than the BMI and waist circumference with MAFLD risk scales.