4.7 Article

Breastfeeding and cardiovascular mortality: the Boyd Orr cohort and a systematic review with meta-analysis

Journal

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
Volume 25, Issue 9, Pages 778-786

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.ehj.2004.02.006

Keywords

breastfeeding; infant nutrition; cardiovascular disease; ischaemic heart disease; systematic review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims To investigate the association of breastfeeding with all-cause, cardiovascular and ischaemic heart disease mortality. Methods and results A long-term follow-up of 4999 children originally surveyed from 1937 to 1939 was undertaken (Boyd Orr cohort). Four thousand three hundred and seventy-nine subjects (88%) were traced in adulthood and 3555 (71%) had complete data on all covariates. The results were combined with a meta-analysis of the published Literature. In the Boyd Orr study, there was little evidence that breastfeeding was associated with all-cause (hazard ratio: 1.04 [95% Cl: 0.90-1.20]), cardiovascular (1.04 [0.83-1.30]), or ischaemic heart disease (1.02 [0.77-1.36]) mortality, compared with bottle-feeding. Meta-analyses of observational studies showed little evidence of an association of breastfeeding with all-cause (pooled rate ratio: 1.01 [95% Cl: 0.91-1.13]) or cardiovascular (1.06 [0.94-1.20]) mortality. There was a moderate-to-high degree of between-study heterogeneity for the association between breastfeeding and ischaemic heart disease mortality (11 value-indicating the degree of between-study variation attributable to heterogeneity-66%), and estimates were consistent with both an important beneficial or adverse effect of breastfeeding. Conclusion There is little consistent evidence that breastfeeding influences subsequent all-cause or cardiovascular disease mortality. Results from other well-designed cohorts may clarify residual uncertainty. (C) 2004 The European Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available