4.6 Article

Urinary Cadmium and Incident Heart Failure A Case-Cohort Analysis Among Never-Smokers in Denmark

期刊

EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 33, 期 2, 页码 185-192

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001446

关键词

cadmium; case-cohort study design; incident heart failure; urine biomarker

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is a positive association between urinary cadmium and incident heart failure in a cohort of people who never smoked, especially among men.
Background: Epidemiologic studies suggest cadmium exposure is associated with cardiovascular disease risk, including heart failure. However, prior findings may be influenced by tobacco smoking, a dominant source of cadmium exposure and risk factor for heart failure. The present study leverages up to 20 years of follow-up in the Danish Diet, Cancer and Health cohort to examine the relationship between urinary cadmium and incident heart failure among people who never smoked. Methods: Between 1993 and 1997, 19,394 never-smoking participants (ages 50-64 years) enrolled and provided a urine sample. From this sample, we randomly selected a subcohort of 600 men and 600 women and identified 958 incident heart failure cases occurring between baseline and 2015. Using a case-cohort approach, we estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for heart failure in Cox proportional hazards models with age as the time scale. Results: Participants had relatively low concentrations of urinary cadmium, as expected for never smokers (median = 0.20; 25th, 75th = 0.13, 0.32 mu g cadmium/g creatinine). In adjusted models, we found that higher urinary cadmium was associated with a higher rate of incident heart failure overall (aHR = 1.1 per interquartile range difference [95% CI = 1.0, 1.2). In sex-stratified analyses, the association seemed restricted to men (aHR = 1.5 [95% CI = 1.2, 1.9]). Conclusions: In this cohort of people who never smoked tobacco, environmental cadmium was positively associated with incident heart failure, especially among men.

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