4.4 Article

Dietary magnesium intake and risk of cardiovascular disease among women

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 96, Issue 8, Pages 1135-1141

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2005.06.045

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA-47988] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL-43851] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK66401] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study assessed the hypothesis that greater magnesium intake is associated with reduced risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), including myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke, in a large prospective cohort of women. In 1993, a semi-quantitative food. frequency questionnaire was used to assess magnesium intake in 39,876 female health professionals aged 39 to 89 years who had no history of CVD or cancer. During a median of 10 years of follow-up, 1,037 incident cases of CVD were identified, including 280 nonfatal MIs and 368 strokes. After adjustment for age and randomized treatment status, magnesium intake was not significantly associated with risk for incident CVD. Comparing the highest, quintile of magnesium intake (median 433 mg/day) with the lowest quintile (median 255 mg/day), the relative risks were 0.87 (95%.confidence interval [CI] 0.72 to 1.05, p for trend = 0.24) for total CVD, 0.88 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.12, p for trend = 0.34) for coronary heart disease (CHD), 1.03 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.49, p for trend = 0.96) for nonfatal MI, 1.11 (95% CI 0.61 to 2.00, p for trend = 0.95) for CVD death, and 0.87 (95% Cl 0.64 to 1.18, p for trend = 0.55) for total stroke. Additional adjustment for other CVD risk factors did not materially change the observed null associations. In conclusion, the results do not support the hypothesis that magnesium intake reduces the development of CHD, although a modest inverse association with stroke cannot be ruled out. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available