| Literature DB >> 29518141 |
Mihir M Sanghvi1, Nay Aung1, Jackie A Cooper1, José Miguel Paiva1, Aaron M Lee1, Filip Zemrak1, Kenneth Fung1, Ross J Thomson1, Elena Lukaschuk2, Valentina Carapella2, Young Jin Kim2,3, Nicholas C Harvey4,5, Stefan K Piechnik2, Stefan Neubauer2, Steffen E Petersen1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effect of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT)-previously known as hormone replacement therapy-on cardiovascular health remains unclear and controversial. This cross-sectional study examined the impact of MHT on left ventricular (LV) and left atrial (LA) structure and function, alterations in which are markers of subclinical cardiovascular disease, in a population-based cohort.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29518141 PMCID: PMC5843282 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194015
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Case selection flowchart.
Baseline characteristics.
| Never used MHT | MHT use ≥ 3 years | |
|---|---|---|
| (n = 1091) | (n = 513) | |
| 61.3 (6.4) | 65.4 (5.7) | |
| 26.0 (4.7) | 25.9 (4.3) | |
| 92% (1004) | 93% (475) | |
| 163 (6.2) | 162 (6.1) | |
| 133 (18.8) | 135 (19.3) | |
| 77 (9.9) | 76 (10.0) | |
| 11.9% (130) | 19.5% (100) | |
| 3.7% (40) | 4.1% (21) | |
| 2.8% (31) | 3.7% (19) | |
| 16.6% (154) | 22.9% (103) | |
| 50.6 (4.3) | 48.3 (6.4) | |
| 51 [48–53] | 50 [45–52] | |
| N/A | 47.6 (5.3) | |
| N/A | 8 [5–11] |
*Indicates data presented as median (interquartile range)
Mean CMR parameters, unadjusted.
| Never used MHT | MHT use ≥ 3 years | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 1091) | (n = 513) | ||
| 123.7 (21.4) | 117.6 (21.6) | <0.0001 | |
| 47.9 (12.0) | 45.8 (11.9) | 0.002 | |
| 74.9 (13.6) | 70.7 (14.2) | <0.0001 | |
| 60.9 (5.7) | 60.5 (6.2) | 0.313 | |
| 72.1 (13.7) | 71.3 (14.1) | 0.325 | |
| 60.9 (17.2) | 56.9 (16.8) | <0.0001 |
Effect of MHT use ≥ 3 years on CMR parameters in fully-adjusted models.
| Adjusted mean: never used MHT | Adjusted mean: MHT use > = 3 years | Effect size (%) | 95% Confidence Interval | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 122.8 | 119.8 | -2.4 | (-4.2, -0.5) | 0.013 | |
| 47.5 | 46.9 | -1.3 | (-4.2,1.6) | 0.383 | |
| 74.3 | 72.1 | -3.1 | (-5.1, -1.0) | 0.004 | |
| 60.9 | 60.4 | -0.5 | (-1.2, 0.3) | 0.212 | |
| 71.5 | 71.6 | 0.1 | (-1.9, 2.2) | 0.914 | |
| 60.2 | 57.5 | -4.5 | (-7.8, -1.0) | 0.012 |
All parameters barring LV ejection fraction have been log-transformed and are therefore expressed as percentage change.
Model adjusted for age, age at menopause, ethnicity, height, weight, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, smoking status, regular alcohol use, presence of raised cholesterol, presence of diabetes, Townsend deprivation index and income.
Effect modification analysis; interaction of MHT use with age.
| Tertile of age | MHT effect size | 95% Confidence Interval | P value | P value for interaction with age | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1) 47–60 years | 3.2% | (-0.6, 7.2) | 0.096 | p = 0.0005 | |
| 2) 61–66 years | -2.9% | (-5.8, 0.2) | 0.064 | ||
| 3) 67–77 years | -6.2% | (-9.0, -3.3) | <0.0001 | ||
| 1) 47–60 years | 7.7% | (1.6, 14.1) | 0.012 | p = 0.001 | |
| 2) 61–66 years | -3.1% | (-7.6, 1.6) | 0.195 | ||
| 3) 67–77 years | -5.9% | (-10.1, -1.4) | 0.010 | ||
| 1) 47–60 years | 0.3% | (-3.8, 4.5) | 0.896 | p = 0.033 | |
| 2) 61–66 years | -2.6% | (-5.9, 0.8) | 0.128 | ||
| 3) 67–77 years | -6.4% | (-9.4, -3.2) | <0.0001 | ||
| 1) 47–60 years | 0.1% | (-6.6, 7.3) | 0.974 | p = 0.006 | |
| 2) 61–66 years | -1.2% | (-6.6, 4.6) | 0.688 | ||
| 3) 67–77 years | -10.1% | (-15.0, -5.0) | 0.0002 |
Effect sizes presented following adjustment for: duration of MHT use fitted as tertiles, age at menopause, ethnicity, height, weight, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, smoking status, regular alcohol use, presence of raised cholesterol, presence of diabetes, Townsend score and income.
Fig 2Interaction plots for age and MHT use.
For every ten-year increment in age, there is a reduction in LV end-diastolic volume, LV end-systolic volume, LV stroke volume and LA maximal volume. The relationship between age and CMR outcomes is of greater magnitude amongst MHT users than that amongst non-users.
Sensitivity analysis: Mean difference in CMR parameters by MHT users ≥ 3 years and propensity-matched controls.
| Mean (SD) in MHT users ≥3 years (n = 429) | Mean (SD) in propensity-matched controls (n = 429) | Mean difference (%) | 95% confidence interval | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 117.5 (21.6) | 121.7 (19.9) | -3.2 | (-5.5, -0.9) | 0.007 | |
| 45.6 (11.8) | 47.0 (11.9) | -2.5 | (-5.8, 1.0) | 0.157 | |
| 70.9 (14.2) | 73.8 (12.7) | -3.7 | (-6.1, -1.3) | 0.003 | |
| 60.8 (6.1) | 61.0 (6.1) | -0.4 | (-1.2, 0.5) | 0.394 | |
| 70.9 (14.2) | 71.6 (13.2) | -0.7 | (-3.2, 2.0) | 0.601 | |
| 56.8 (17.0) | 59.4 (17.3) | -4.9 | (-8.9, -0.8) | 0.019 |
Propensity-matched controls are selected using the following variables: age, age at menopause, ethnicity, height, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, smoking status, regular alcohol use, presence of raised cholesterol and presence of diabetes, Townsend deprivation index and income.