Psychological distress and ischaemic heart disease: cause or consequence? Evidence from a large prospective cohort
Jennifer Welsh1, Rosemary J Korda1, Grace Joshy1
1National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Research School of Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Background:
Ischaemic heart disease (IHD) incidence is elevated in people reporting psychological distress. The extent to which this relationship is causal or related to reverse causality-that is, undiagnosed disease causing distress-is unclear. We quantified the relationship between psychological distress and IHD, with consideration of confounding and undiagnosed disease.
Methods:
Questionnaire data (2006-2009) from 151 811 cardiovascular disease-free and cancer-free Australian general population members aged ≥45years (45 and Up Study) were linked to hospitalisation and mortality data, to December 2013. A two-stage approach estimated HRs for incident IHD (IHD-related hospitalisation or death) for low (Kessler-10 scores: 10-<12), mild (12-<16), moderate (16-<22) and high (22-50) psychological distress, adjusting for demographic and behavioural characteristics, and then restricting to those with no/minor functioning limitations (likely free from undiagnosed disease).
Results:
Over 859 396 person-years, 5230 incident IHD events occurred (rate: 6.09/1000person-years). IHD risk was increased for mild (age-adjusted and sex-adjusted HR: 1.18, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.26), moderate (1.36, 1.25 to 1.47), and high (1.69, 1.52 to 1.88) versus low distress. HRs attenuated to 1.15 (1.08 to 1.22), 1.26 (1.16 to 1.37) and 1.41 (1.26 to 1.57) after adjustment for demographic and behavioural characteristics and were further attenuated by 35%-41% in those with no/minor limitations, leaving a significant but relatively weak dose-response relationship: 1.11 (1.02 to 1.20), 1.21 (1.08 to 1.37) and 1.24 (1.02 to 1.51) for mild, moderate and high versus low distress, respectively. The observed adjustment-related attenuation suggests measurement error/residual confounding likely contribute to the remaining association.
Conclusion:
A substantial part of the distress-IHD association is explained by confounding and functional limitations, an indicator of undiagnosed disease. Emphasis should be on psychological distress as a marker of healthcare need and IHD risk, rather than a causative factor.
More Related Videos
10:21Evaluation of Hydration Status by Bioelectrical Impedance Vector Analysis in Patients with Ischemic Heart Disease Undergoing Exercise Stress Test
Published on: September 22, 2023
06:39Intracoronary Acetylcholine Provocation Testing for Assessment of Coronary Vasomotor Disorders
Published on: August 18, 2016
Related Concept Videos
Psychoneuroimmunology: Cardiovascular Disease
A key area of focus in PNI is the relationship between stress and coronary...
Coronary Artery Disease I: Introduction
Ischemic Heart Disease: Overview
Atherosclerosis, the primary malefactor, orchestrates this dangerous condition. It manifests as the accumulation of fatty deposits, akin to insidious plaques, within arterial walls. As time elapses, these plaques metamorphose, hardening and...
Coronary Artery Disease IV: Preventive Measures
Rheumatic Heart Disease II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
