4.6 Article

Air pollution in relation to very short-term risk of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Case-crossover analysis of SWEDEHEART

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 275, 期 -, 页码 26-30

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.10.069

关键词

Air pollution; ST-elevation myocardial infarction; Weather

资金

  1. Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions
  2. Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Studies have related air pollution to myocardial infarction (MI) events over days or weeks, with few data on very short-term risks. We studied risk of ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) within hours of exposure to air pollution while adjusting for weather. Methods: We performed a case-crossover study of STEMI cases in Stockholm, Sweden (Jan 2000-June 2014) based on SWEDEHEART. Exposures during hazard periods up to 24 h prior to admission were compared to bidirectionally sampled control periods. Risks attributable to sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone and particulate pollutants (PM2.5, PM10) were studied in conditional logistic regression models for interquartile range increments. Results: Risk of STEMI (n=14,601) was associated with NO2 (strongest at 15-h lag) and with PM2.5 (strongest at 20-h lag), in single-pollutant models adjusting for air temperature and humidity (NO2: odds ratio (OR; 95% confidence interval) 1.065 (1.031-1.101); PM2.5: 1.026 (1.001-1.054)). After adjusting models for atmospheric pressure (significantly associated with STEMI risk at 14-24-h lags), NO2 remained highly statistically significant (1.057 (1.022-1.094)) but not PM2.5 (1.024 (0.997-1.052)). No associations were seen for SO2, ozone or PM10. Conclusion: Risk of STEMI rises within hours of exposure to air pollutants, with strongest impact of NO2. These findings are complementary to earlier reports which have not acknowledged widely the importance of very short-term fluctuations in air pollution. (c) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据