4.5 Article

Atrial fibrillation as risk factor for cardiovascular disease and death in women compared with men: systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies

期刊

BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 352, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h7013

关键词

-

资金

  1. Rhodes Scholarships
  2. Neil Hamilton Fairly Fellowship from National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To determine whether atrial fibrillation is a stronger risk factor for cardiovascular disease and death in women compared with men. DESIGN Meta-analysis of cohort studies. DATA SOURCES Studies published between January 1966 and March 2015, identified through a systematic search of Medline and Embase and review of references. ELIGIBILITY FOR SELECTING STUDIES Cohort studies with a minimum of 50 participants with and 50 without atrial fibrillation that reported sex specific associations between atrial fibrillation and all cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, cardiac events (cardiac death and non-fatal myocardial infarction), and heart failure. DATA EXTRACTION Two independent reviewers extracted study characteristics and maximally adjusted sex specific relative risks. Inverse variance weighted random effects meta-analysis was used to pool sex specific relative risks and their ratio. RESULTS 30 studies with 4 371 714 participants were identified. Atrial fibrillation was associated with a higher risk of all cause mortality in women (ratio of relative risks for women compared with men 1.12, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.17) and a significantly stronger risk of stroke (1.99, 1.46 to 2.71), cardiovascular mortality (1.93, 1.44 to 2.60), cardiac events (1.55, 1.15 to 2.08), and heart failure (1.16, 1.07 to 1.27). Results were broadly consistent in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION Atrial fibrillation is a stronger risk factor for cardiovascular disease and death in women compared with men, though further research would be needed to determine any causality.

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

4.5
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