Prevalence of erectile dysfunction in Egyptian males with metabolic syndrome

Figures & data

Table 1. Comparison between different parameters of the two studied groups.

Parameters	Patients with MetS (n = 325)		Patients without MetS (n = 290)		Test of sig.	p
Age
Min–Max	23.0–74.0		33.0–74.0
Mean ± SD	56.07 ± 8.51		54.97 ± 8.14		t = 1.667	.096
Median	57.0		55.0
	No.	%	No.	%
Smoking
Smoker	221	68	177	61	χ^2 = 3.255	.071
Non-smoker	104	32	113	39
BMI
Min–Max	19.38–55.49		17.16–38.97
Mean ± SD	30.48 ± 5.11		25.32 ± 3.30		t = 15.047*	<.001*
Median	29.41		24.50
WC
Min–Max	80.0–144.0		90.0–115.0
Mean ± SD	109.72 ± 8.87		99.59 ± 5.59		t = 17.139*	<.001*
Median	108.0		100.0
Systolic
Min–Max	80.0–180.0		100.0–160.0
Mean ± SD	143.78 ± 16.10		121.43 ± 11.33		t = 20.077*	<.001*
Median	150.0		120.0
Diastolic
Min–Max	60.0–120.0		60.0–110.0
Mean ± SD	88.28 ± 7.82		76.70 ± 8.18		t = 17.882*	<.001*
Median	90.0		80.0
FBS
Min–Max	67.0–481.0		74.0–156.0
Mean ± SD	166.93 ± 72.62		102.05 ± 11.10		Z = 17.896*	<.001*
Median	144.0		101.0
TG
Min–Max	36.0–590.0		62.0–180.0
Mean ± SD	170.94 ± 69.34		133.74 ± 15.51		Z = 12.463*	<.001*
Median	160.0		135.0
HDL
Min–Max	12.0–88.0		29.0–65.0
Mean ± SD	37.12 ± 7.99		44.31 ± 4.99		Z = 13.390*	<.001*
Median	37.0		43.0
IIEF-5
Min–Max	5.0–25.0		5.0–25.0
Mean ± SD	13.56 ± 7.35		21.54 ± 5.32		Z = 13.683*	<.001*
Median	14.0		24.0

t: Student’s t-test; Z: Z for Mann–Whitney test; χ²: Chi-square test.

*Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05.

Table 2. Comparison between patients with MetS and patients without MetS according to ED prevalence and severity.

	MetS group (n = 325)			Control group (n = 290)				p	OR	95% (CI)
	No.		%		No.		%
ED
Mild	66		20.3		50		17.2	<.001*	3.999*	2.526–6.333
Moderate	73		22.5		20		6.9	<.001*	11.059*	6.276–19.487
Severe	119		36.6		17		5.9	<.001*	21.209*	11.89–37.818
Patients with ED	258		79.4		87		30.0	<.001*	8.985*	6.220–12.980
Patients without ED	67		20.6		203		70.0

p: p-values for Chi-square test.

*Statistically significant at p ≤ .05.

Table 3. Association of metabolic risk factors and ED in MetS.

	MetS patients (n = 325)
	Non-ED (n = 67) (20.6%)		ED patients (n = 258) (79.4%)
			17–21 mild		8–16 moderate		5–7 severe
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Number of risk factors
3 (n = 123)	46	37.4	32	26.0	18	14.6	27	22.0
4 (n = 116)	16	13.8	22	19.0	37	31.9	41	35.3
5 (n = 86)	5	5.8	12	14.0	18	20.9	51	59.3
rs (p)	0.389* (<0.001*)

r_s: Spearman coefficient.

*Statistically significant at p ≤ .05.

Table 4. Multivariate analysis Binary logistic regression for ED in thecontrol group.

	B	SE	Sig.	OR	95% CI
					LL	UL
DM	2.592	0.578	<0.001*	13.357*	4.305	41.438
HTN	2.201	0.446	<0.001*	9.033*	3.767	21.660
HDL	2.095	0.537	<0.001*	8.123*	2.837	23.257
Age	0.066	0.020	0.001*	1.068*	1.027	1.111
TG	0.574	0.596	0.336	1.776	0.552	5.715
BMI	0.049	0.053	0.348	1.051	0.948	1.165

*Statistically significant at p ≤ .05.

Figure 1. Association of ED prevalence and the age in MetS and control groups.

Table 5. Relation between duration of ED and severity of ED in MetS group.

	ED patients (n = 246)						χ^2	^MCp
	17–21 mild		8–16 moderate		5–7 severe
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Duration of ED
<5 years	62	25.2	56	22.8	81	32.9	23.627*	<.001*
5–10 years	1	0.4	9	3.7	28	11.4
>10 years	0	0.0	3	1.2	6	2.4
rs (p)	0.449* (<.001*)

χ²: Chi-square; MC: Monte-Carlo test.

r_s: Spearman coefficient.

*Statistically significant at p ≤ .05.

N.B. Data about ED duration was missing for 12 patients.