BACKGROUND: Traffic noise can induce stress reactions that have effects on the cardiovascular system. The exposure-risk relationship between aircraft, road, and rail traffic noise and myocardial infarction is currently unknown. METHODS: 19 632 patients from the Rhine-Main region of Germany who were diagnosed with myocardial infarction in the years 2006-2010 were compared with 834 734 control subjects. The assignment of persons to groups was performed on the basis of billing and prescription data from three statutory health insurance carriers. The exposure of all insurees to aircraft, road, and rail traffic noise in 2005 was determined from their residence addresses. As estimators of risk, odds ratios (OR) were calculated by logistic regression analysis, with adjustment for age, sex, regional social status variables, and individual social status (if available). The evaluation was performed on the basis of the continuous 24-hour noise level and the categorized noise level (in 5 decibel classes). RESULTS: The linear model revealed a statistically significant risk increase due to road noise (2.8% per 10 dB rise, 95% confidence interval [1.2; 4.5]) and railroad noise (2.3% per 10 dB rise [0.5; 4.2]), but not airplane noise. Airplane noise levels of 60 dB and above were associated with a higher risk of myocardial infarction (OR 1.42 [0.62; 3.25]). This higher risk is statistically significant if the analysis is restricted to patients who had died of myocardial infarction by 2014/2015 (OR 2.70 [1.08; 6.74]. In this subgroup, the risk estimators for all three types of traffic noise were of comparable magnitude (3.2% to 3.9% per 10 dB rise in noise level). CONCLUSION: In this study, a substantial proportion of the population was exposed to traffic noise levels that were associated with an albeit small increase in the risk of myocardial infarction. These findings underscore the importance of effective traffic noise prevention.
BACKGROUND: Traffic noise can induce stress reactions that have effects on the cardiovascular system. The exposure-risk relationship between aircraft, road, and rail traffic noise and myocardial infarction is currently unknown. METHODS: 19 632 patients from the Rhine-Main region of Germany who were diagnosed with myocardial infarction in the years 2006-2010 were compared with 834 734 control subjects. The assignment of persons to groups was performed on the basis of billing and prescription data from three statutory health insurance carriers. The exposure of all insurees to aircraft, road, and rail traffic noise in 2005 was determined from their residence addresses. As estimators of risk, odds ratios (OR) were calculated by logistic regression analysis, with adjustment for age, sex, regional social status variables, and individual social status (if available). The evaluation was performed on the basis of the continuous 24-hour noise level and the categorized noise level (in 5 decibel classes). RESULTS: The linear model revealed a statistically significant risk increase due to road noise (2.8% per 10 dB rise, 95% confidence interval [1.2; 4.5]) and railroad noise (2.3% per 10 dB rise [0.5; 4.2]), but not airplane noise. Airplane noise levels of 60 dB and above were associated with a higher risk of myocardial infarction (OR 1.42 [0.62; 3.25]). This higher risk is statistically significant if the analysis is restricted to patients who had died of myocardial infarction by 2014/2015 (OR 2.70 [1.08; 6.74]. In this subgroup, the risk estimators for all three types of traffic noise were of comparable magnitude (3.2% to 3.9% per 10 dB rise in noise level). CONCLUSION: In this study, a substantial proportion of the population was exposed to traffic noise levels that were associated with an albeit small increase in the risk of myocardial infarction. These findings underscore the importance of effective traffic noise prevention.
Authors: Danielle Vienneau; Christian Schindler; Laura Perez; Nicole Probst-Hensch; Martin Röösli Journal: Environ Res Date: 2015-03-10 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Charlotta Eriksson; Mats E Nilsson; Saskia M Willers; Lars Gidhagen; Tom Bellander; Göran Pershagen Journal: Noise Health Date: 2012 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 0.867
Authors: Anna L Hansell; Marta Blangiardo; Lea Fortunato; Sarah Floud; Kees de Hoogh; Daniela Fecht; Rebecca E Ghosh; Helga E Laszlo; Clare Pearson; Linda Beale; Sean Beevers; John Gulliver; Nicky Best; Sylvia Richardson; Paul Elliott Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-10-08
Authors: Ute Kraus; Alexandra Schneider; Susanne Breitner; Regina Hampel; Regina Rückerl; Mike Pitz; Uta Geruschkat; Petra Belcredi; Katja Radon; Annette Peters Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2013-03-19 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Oliver Gruebner; Michael A Rapp; Mazda Adli; Ulrike Kluge; Sandro Galea; Andreas Heinz Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2017-02-24 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Maria Foraster; Ikenna C Eze; Emmanuel Schaffner; Danielle Vienneau; Harris Héritier; Simon Endes; Franziska Rudzik; Laurie Thiesse; Reto Pieren; Christian Schindler; Arno Schmidt-Trucksäss; Mark Brink; Christian Cajochen; Jean Marc Wunderli; Martin Röösli; Nicole Probst-Hensch Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2017-09-07 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Andreas Seidler; Janice Hegewald; Anna Lene Seidler; Melanie Schubert; Hajo Zeeb Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-05-13 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Junenette L Peters; Christopher D Zevitas; Susan Redline; Aaron Hastings; Natalia Sizov; Jaime E Hart; Jonathan I Levy; Christopher J Roof; Gregory A Wellenius Journal: Curr Epidemiol Rep Date: 2018-04-26
Authors: Li Bai; Saeha Shin; Tor H Oiamo; Richard T Burnett; Scott Weichenthal; Michael Jerrett; Jeffrey C Kwong; Ray Copes; Alexander Kopp; Hong Chen Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2020-08-12 Impact factor: 9.031