| Literature DB >> 29343766 |
So Young Kim1, Songyong Sim2, Hyung-Jong Kim3, Hyo Geun Choi4.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) in SSNHL subjects with differently matched control groups. The Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service - National Sample Cohort recruited subjects from 2002 to 2013. We used two study designs. In study I, we matched 4,467 SSNHL participants with a control group (17,868 subjects with no history of SSNHL) based on demographic factors (age, sex, income, and region of residence) and medical history (diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension). In study II, we matched 4,467 SSNHL participants with a control group based on only demographic factors. The crude (simple) and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of SSNHL with MI were analyzed using the Cox-proportional hazard model. In study I, SSNHL was not associated with increased risk of MI. However, in study II, SSNHL was associated with increased risk of MI (adjusted HR = 1.39 95% CI = 1.00-1.93, P = 0.048). The SSNHL group did not exhibit increased risk of MI when compared to the control group matched by both demographic factors and medical history. However, compared to the control group not matched by medical history, the relative risk of MI was increased in the SSNHL group.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29343766 PMCID: PMC5772609 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-19404-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
General Characteristics of Participants in Study I and Study II (matched 1:4).
| Characteristics | Study I | Study II | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SSNHL (n, %) | Control group (n, %) | P-value | SSNHL (n, %) | Control group (n, %) | P-value | |
| Age (years old) | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||
| 5–9 | 2 (0.0) | 8 (0.0) | 2 (0.0) | 8 (0.0) | ||
| 10–14 | 22 (0.5) | 88 (0.5) | 22 (0.5) | 88 (0.5) | ||
| 15–19 | 79 (1.8) | 316 (1.8) | 79 (1.8) | 316 (1.8) | ||
| 20–24 | 109 (2.4) | 436 (2.4) | 109 (2.4) | 436 (2.4) | ||
| 25–29 | 140 (3.1) | 560 (3.1) | 140 (3.1) | 560 (3.1) | ||
| 30–34 | 229 (5.1) | 916 (5.1) | 229 (5.1) | 916 (5.1) | ||
| 35–39 | 271 (6.1) | 1,084 (6.1) | 271 (6.1) | 1,084 (6.1) | ||
| 40–44 | 381 (8.5) | 1,524 (8.5) | 381 (8.5) | 1,524 (8.5) | ||
| 45–49 | 389 (8.7) | 1,556 (8.7) | 389 (8.7) | 1,556 (8.7) | ||
| 50–54 | 511 (11.4) | 2,044 (11.4) | 511 (11.4) | 2,044 (11.4) | ||
| 55–59 | 542 (12.1) | 2,168 (12.1) | 542 (12.1) | 2,168 (12.1) | ||
| 60–64 | 482 (10.8) | 1,928 (10.8) | 482 (10.8) | 1,928 (10.8) | ||
| 65–69 | 395 (8.8) | 1,580 (8.8) | 395 (8.8) | 1,580 (8.8) | ||
| 70–74 | 414 (9.3) | 1,656 (9.3) | 414 (9.3) | 1,656 (9.3) | ||
| 75–79 | 294 (6.6) | 1,176 (6.6) | 294 (6.6) | 1,176 (6.6) | ||
| 80–84 | 133 (3.0) | 532 (3.0) | 133 (3.0) | 532 (3.0) | ||
| 85+ | 74 (1.7) | 296 (1.7) | 74 (1.7) | 296 (1.7) | ||
| Sex | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||
| Male | 1,967 (44.0) | 7,868 (44.0) | 1,967 (44.0) | 7,868 (44.0) | ||
| Female | 2,500 (56.0) | 10,000 (56.0) | 2,500 (56.0) | 10,000 (56.0) | ||
| Income | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||
| 1 (lowest) | 79 (1.8) | 316 (1.8) | 79 (1.8) | 316 (1.8) | ||
| 2 | 282 (6.3) | 1128 (6.3) | 282 (6.3) | 1128 (6.3) | ||
| 3 | 296 (6.6) | 1,184 (6.6) | 296 (6.6) | 1,184 (6.6) | ||
| 4 | 262 (5.9) | 1,048 (5.9) | 262 (5.9) | 1,048 (5.9) | ||
| 5 | 309 (6.9) | 1,236 (6.9) | 309 (6.9) | 1,236 (6.9) | ||
| 6 | 325 (7.3) | 1,300 (7.3) | 325 (7.3) | 1,300 (7.3) | ||
| 7 | 431 (9.6) | 1,724 (9.6) | 431 (9.6) | 1,724 (9.6) | ||
| 8 | 423 (9.5) | 1,692 (9.5) | 423 (9.5) | 1,692 (9.5) | ||
| 9 | 571 (12.8) | 2,284 (12.8) | 571 (12.8) | 2,284 (12.8) | ||
| 10 | 700 (15.7) | 2,800 (15.7) | 700 (15.7) | 2,800 (15.7) | ||
| 11 (highest) | 789 (17.7) | 3,156 (17.7) | 789 (17.7) | 3,156 (17.7) | ||
| Region of residence | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||
| Urban | 2,057 (46.0) | 8,228 (46.0) | 2,057 (46.0) | 8,228 (46.0) | ||
| Rural | 2,410 (54.0) | 9,640 (54.0) | 2,410 (54.0) | 9,640 (54.0) | ||
| Hypertension | 1.000 | <0.001* | ||||
| Yes | 1,674 (37.5) | 6,696 (37.5) | 1,674 (37.5) | 5,837 (32.7) | ||
| No | 2,793 (62.5) | 11,172 (62.5) | 2,793 (62.5) | 12,031 (67.3) | ||
| Diabetes | 1.000 | <0.001* | ||||
| Yes | 970 (21.7) | 3,880 (21.7) | 970 (21.7) | 2,930 (16.4) | ||
| No | 3,497 (78.3) | 13,988 (78.3) | 3,497 (78.3) | 14,938 (83.6) | ||
| Dyslipidemia | 1.000 | <0.001* | ||||
| Yes | 1,403 (31.4) | 5,612 (31.4) | 1,403 (31.4) | 4,312 (24.1) | ||
| No | 3,064 (68.6) | 12,256 (68.6) | 3,064 (68.6) | 13,556 (75.9) | ||
| MI | 0.534 | 0.002* | ||||
| Yes | 51 (1.1) | 185 (1.0) | 51 (1.1) | 124 (0.7) | ||
| No | 4,416 (98.9) | 17,683 (99.0) | 4,416 (98.9) | 17,744 (99.3) | ||
SSNHL: sudden sensory neural hearing loss.
MI: myocardial infarction.
*Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test. Significance at P < 0.05.
Crude and adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) of sudden sensory neural hearing loss (SSNHL) for myocardial infarction in Study I and Study II.
| SSNHL | Hazard ratios | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crude | P-value | Adjusted† | P-value | |
| Study I | ||||
| SSNHL | 1.10 (0.81–1.50) | 0.536 | 1.10 (0.81–1.50) | 0.535 |
| Control | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Study II | ||||
| SSNHL | 1.66 (1.19–2.29) | 0.002* | 1.39 (1.00–1.93) | 0.048* |
| Control | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
*Cox-proportional hazard regression model, Significance at P < 0.05.
†Adjusted model for age, sex, income, region of residence, hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia histories.
Crude and adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) of sudden sensory neural hearing loss (SSNHL) for myocardial infarction according to age group and follow up periods in Study I.
| SSNHL | Hazard ratios | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crude | P-value | Adjusted† | P-value | |
| Age <50 years old (n = 8,110) | ||||
| SSNHL | 1.23 (0.40–3.78) | 0.716 | 1.21 (0.40–3.72) | 0.737 |
| Control | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Age ≥50 years old (n = 14,225) | ||||
| SSNHL | 1.09 (0.79–1.51) | 0.590 | 1.09 (0.80–1.51) | 0.587 |
| Control | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Follow up ≥3 years (n = 16,615) | ||||
| SSNHL | 1.13 (0.81–1.57) | 0.467 | 1.13 (0.81–1.57) | 0.468 |
| Control | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Follow up ≥5 years (n = 12,185) | ||||
| SSNHL | 1.12 (0.80–1.59) | 0.509 | 1.12 (0.79–1.59) | 0.511 |
| Control | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
*Cox-proportional hazard regression model, Significance at P < 0.05.
†Adjusted model for age, sex, income, region of residence, hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia histories.
Crude and adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) of sudden sensory neural hearing loss (SSNHL) for myocardial infarction according to age group and follow up periods in Study II.
| SSNHL | Hazard ratios | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crude | P-value | Adjusted† | P-value | |
| Age <50 years old (n = 8,110) | ||||
| SSNHL | 5.23 (1.20–23.87) | 0.028* | 4.92 (1.08–22.29) | 0.039* |
| Control | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Age ≥50 years old (n = 14,225) | ||||
| SSNHL | 1.56 (1.11–2.18) | 0.013* | 1.32 (0.94-0.185) | 0.111 |
| Control | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Follow up ≥3 years (n = 16,615) | ||||
| SSNHL | 1.57 (1.12–2.21) | 0.010* | 1.32 (0.94–1.86) | 0.114 |
| Control | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Follow up ≥5 years (n = 12,185) | ||||
| SSNHL | 1.60 (1.12–2.30) | 0.014* | 1.35 (0.94–1.95) | 0.105 |
| Control | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
*Cox-proportional hazard regression model, Significance at P < 0.05.
†Adjusted model for age, sex, income, region of residence, hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia histories.
Figure 1A schematic illustration of the participant selection process that was used in the present study. Out of a total of 1,025,340 participants, 4,467 SSNHL participants were matched with control participants for age, group, sex, income group, region of residence, and medical history (study I) and were rematched with a new group of control participants for age, group, sex, income group, and region of residence (study II).