4.7 Article

Association of Solid Fuel Use With Risk of Cardiovascular and All-Cause Mortality in Rural China

期刊

JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
卷 319, 期 13, 页码 1351-1361

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2018.2151

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81390540, 91643202]
  2. 111 Project
  3. Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University
  4. UK Medical Research Council: Global Challenges Research Fund-Foundation Award [MR/P025080/1]
  5. Nuffield Department of Population Health
  6. St Anne's College, University of Oxford
  7. Kadoorie Charitable Foundation in Hong Kong
  8. UK Wellcome Trust [202922/Z/16/Z, 104085/Z/14/Z, 088158/Z/09/Z]
  9. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFC0900500-501, 2016YFC0900504]
  10. British Heart Foundation
  11. UK Medical Research Council
  12. Cancer Research
  13. MRC [MC_U137686851, MR/P025080/1, MC_UU_12026/2] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

IMPORTANCE When combusted indoors, solid fuels generate a large amount of pollutants such as fine particulate matter. OBJECTIVE To assess the associations of solid fuel use for cooking and heating with cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This nationwide prospective cohort study recruited participants from 5 rural areas across China between June 2004 and July 2008; mortality follow-up was until January 1, 2014. A total of 271 217 adults without a self-reported history of physician-diagnosed cardiovascular disease at baseline were included, with a random subset (n = 10 892) participating in a resurvey after a mean interval of 2.7 years. EXPOSURES Self-reported primary cooking and heating fuels (solid: coal, wood, or charcoal; clean: gas, electricity, or central heating), switching of fuel type before baseline, and use of ventilated cookstoves. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Death from cardiovascular and all causes, collected through established death registries. RESULTS Among the 271 217 participants, the mean (SD) age was 51.0 (10.2) years, and 59% (n = 158 914) were women. A total of 66%(n = 179 952) of the participants reported regular cooking (at least weekly) and 60%(n = 163 882) reported winter heating, of whom 84% (n = 150 992) and 90% (n = 147 272) used solid fuels, respectively. There were 15 468 deaths, including 5519 from cardiovascular causes, documented during a mean (SD) of 7.2 (1.4) years of follow-up. Use of solid fuels for cooking was associated with greater risk of cardiovascular mortality (absolute rate difference [ARD] per 100 000 person-years, 135 [95% CI, 77-193]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.20 [95% CI, 1.02-1.41]) and all-cause mortality (ARD, 338 [95% CI, 249-427]; HR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.03-1.20]). Use of solid fuels for heating was also associated with greater risk of cardiovascular mortality (ARD, 175 [95% CI, 118-231]; HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.06-1.55]) and all-cause mortality (ARD, 392 [95% CI, 297-487]; HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03-1.26]). Compared with persistent solid fuel users, participants who reported having previously switched from solid to clean fuels for cooking had a lower risk of cardiovascular mortality (ARD, 138 [95% CI, 71-205]; HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.69-0.99]) and all-cause mortality (ARD, 407 [95% CI, 317-497]; HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.79-0.95]), while for heating, the ARDs were 193 (95% CI, 128-258) and 492 (95% CI, 383-601), and the HRs were 0.57 (95% CI, 0.42-0.77) and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.57-0.79), respectively. Among solid fuel users, use of ventilated cookstoves was also associated with lower risk of cardiovascular mortality (ARD, 33 [95% CI, -9 to 75]; HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.80-0.99]) and all-cause mortality (ARD, 87 [95% CI, 20-153]; HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.85-0.96]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In rural China, solid fuel use for cooking and heating was associated with higher risks of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. These risks may be lower among those who had previously switched to clean fuels and those who used ventilation.

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

4.7
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