4.5 Review

Posttraumatic stress disorder and risk for coronary heart disease: A meta-analytic review

期刊

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 166, 期 5, 页码 806-814

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2013.07.031

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective The aim of this study was to estimate the association of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with risk for incident coronary heart disease (CHD). Design A systematic review and meta-analysis were used as study designs. Data Sources Articles were identified by searching Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Library, PILOTS database, and PubMed Related Articles and through a manual search of reference lists (1948-present). Study Selection All studies that assessed PTSD in participants initially free of CHD and subsequently assessed CHD/cardiac-specific mortality were included. Data Extraction Two investigators independently extracted estimates of the association of PTSD with CHD, as well as study characteristics. Odds ratios were converted to hazard ratios (HRs), and a random-effects model was used to pool results. A secondary analysis including only studies that reported estimates adjusted for depression was conducted. Results Six studies met our inclusion criteria (N = 402,274); 5 of these included depression as a covariate. The pooled HR for the magnitude of the relationship between PTSD and CHD was 1.55 (95% CI 1.34-1.79) before adjustment for depression. The pooled HR estimate for the 5 depression-adjusted estimates (N = 362,950) was 1.27 (95% CI 1.08-1.49). Conclusion Posttraumatic stress disorder is independently associated with increased risk for incident CHD, even after adjusting for depression and other covariates. It is common in both military veterans and civilian trauma survivors, and these results suggest that it may be a modifiable risk factor for CHD. Future research should identify the mechanisms of this association and determine whether PTSD treatment offsets CHD risk.

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