4.6 Article

Laboratory-confirmed respiratory infections as triggers for acute myocardial infarction and stroke: a self-controlled case series analysis of national linked datasets from Scotland

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 51, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01794-2017

关键词

-

资金

  1. Academy of Medical Sciences Starter Grant for Clinical Lecturers
  2. Wellcome Intermediate Clinical Fellowship [201440_Z_16_Z]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While acute respiratory tract infections can trigger cardiovascular events, the differential effect of specific organisms is unknown. This is important to guide vaccine policy. Using national infection surveillance data linked to the Scottish Morbidity Record, we identified adults with a first myocardial infarction or stroke from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2014 and a record of laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection during this period. Using self-controlled case series analysis, we generated age-and season-adjusted incidence ratios (IRs) for myocardial infarction (n=1227) or stroke (n=762) after infections compared with baseline time. We found substantially increased myocardial infarction rates in the week after Streptococcus pneumoniae and influenza virus infection: adjusted IRs for days 1-3 were 5.98 (95% CI 2.47-14.4) and 9.80 (95% CI 2.37-40.5), respectively. Rates of stroke after infection were similarly high and remained elevated to 28 days: day 1-3 adjusted IRs 12.3 (95% CI 5.48-27.7) and 7.82 (95% CI 1.07-56.9) for S. pneumoniae and influenza virus, respectively. Although other respiratory viruses were associated with raised point estimates for both outcomes, only the day 4-7 estimate for stroke reached statistical significance. We showed a marked cardiovascular triggering effect of S. pneumoniae and influenza virus, which highlights the need for adequate pneumococcal and influenza vaccine uptake. Further research is needed into vascular effects of noninfluenza respiratory viruses.

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