Karina W Davidson1, Elizabeth Mostofsky. 1. Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, College of Physicians and Surgeons, 622 W. 168th St., New York, NY 10032, USA. kd2124@columbia.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whereas some studies have found that anger increases the risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD), others found anger to be protective. Prior studies did not account for different types of anger expression, which may be associated with opposing levels of cardiovascular risk. This study examines whether distinct types of anger expression differentially predict incident CHD. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, observational prospective study of 785 randomly selected Canadian men and women (50% each) aged 46 to 92 years and free of CHD in 1995. Using videotaped interviews, trained coders rated 3 types of anger expression: constructive anger (discussing anger to resolve the situation), destructive anger justification (blaming others for one's anger), and destructive anger rumination (brooding over an anger-inducing incident). The association between anger expression type per SD and incident CHD was estimated using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for sex, age, cardiovascular risk factors, depressive symptoms, hostility, and anxiety. Interactions of anger expression type and gender were also tested. RESULTS: There were 115 incident CHD events (14.6%) during 6,584 person-years of follow-up. The association between clinically assessed constructive anger expression and CHD varied by gender (P for interaction = .02); higher levels were associated with a lower risk of incident CHD in men only (hazard ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.80, P < .001), whereas higher levels of destructive anger justification was associated with a 31% increased risk of CHD in both sexes (hazard ratio 1.31, 95% CI 1.03-1.67, P = .03) and predicted CHD incidence independent of covariates and depressive symptoms, hostility, and anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Decreased constructive anger in men and increased destructive anger justification in men and women are associated with increased risk of 10-year incident CHD. Copyright (c) 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Whereas some studies have found that anger increases the risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD), others found anger to be protective. Prior studies did not account for different types of anger expression, which may be associated with opposing levels of cardiovascular risk. This study examines whether distinct types of anger expression differentially predict incident CHD. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, observational prospective study of 785 randomly selected Canadian men and women (50% each) aged 46 to 92 years and free of CHD in 1995. Using videotaped interviews, trained coders rated 3 types of anger expression: constructive anger (discussing anger to resolve the situation), destructive anger justification (blaming others for one's anger), and destructive anger rumination (brooding over an anger-inducing incident). The association between anger expression type per SD and incident CHD was estimated using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for sex, age, cardiovascular risk factors, depressive symptoms, hostility, and anxiety. Interactions of anger expression type and gender were also tested. RESULTS: There were 115 incident CHD events (14.6%) during 6,584 person-years of follow-up. The association between clinically assessed constructive anger expression and CHD varied by gender (P for interaction = .02); higher levels were associated with a lower risk of incident CHD in men only (hazard ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.80, P < .001), whereas higher levels of destructive anger justification was associated with a 31% increased risk of CHD in both sexes (hazard ratio 1.31, 95% CI 1.03-1.67, P = .03) and predicted CHD incidence independent of covariates and depressive symptoms, hostility, and anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Decreased constructive anger in men and increased destructive anger justification in men and women are associated with increased risk of 10-year incident CHD. Copyright (c) 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Lijing L Yan; Kiang Liu; Karen A Matthews; Martha L Daviglus; T Freeman Ferguson; Catarina I Kiefe Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-10-22 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Elaine D Eaker; Lisa M Sullivan; Margaret Kelly-Hayes; Ralph B D'Agostino; Emelia J Benjamin Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-03-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Biing-Jiun Shen; Yael E Avivi; John F Todaro; Avron Spiro; Jean-Philippe Laurenceau; Kenneth D Ward; Raymond Niaura Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-01-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Ashley E Moncrieft; Maria M Llabre; Linda C Gallo; Jianwen Cai; Franklyn Gonzalez; Patricia Gonzalez; Natania W Ostrovsky; Neil Schneiderman; Frank J Penedo Journal: Psychol Health Date: 2016-07-25
Authors: Jonathan D Newman; Karina W Davidson; Jonathan A Shaffer; Joseph E Schwartz; William Chaplin; Susan Kirkland; Daichi Shimbo Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-09-13 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Elizabeth Mostofsky; Malcolm Maclure; Geoffrey H Tofler; James E Muller; Murray A Mittleman Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2013-04-30 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Osama Dasa; Ahmed N Mahmoud; Peter G Kaufmann; Mark Ketterer; Kathleen C Light; James Raczynski; David S Sheps; Peter H Stone; Eileen Handberg; Carl J Pepine Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Jonathan A Shaffer; Lauren Taggart Wasson; Karina W Davidson; Joseph E Schwartz; Susan Kirkland; Daichi Shimbo Journal: Int J Hypertens Date: 2012-02-08 Impact factor: 2.420