Wenzhen Li1, Wenyu Ruan2, Zuxun Lu1, Dongming Wang3. 1. 1 Department of Social Medicine and Health Management, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, China. 2. 2 Department of Clinical Medicine, Xi'an Medical University, China. 3. 3 Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parity has been reported to play an important role in the development of cardiovascular disease; however, the results are still controversial. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of cohort studies to assess quantitatively the association between parity and cardiovascular disease risk. METHODS: PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched to 1 June 2018, supplemented by manual searches of the bibliographies of retrieved articles. And multivariate-adjusted relative risks were pooled by using random-effects models. Restricted cubic spline analysis with four knots was used to explore the relationship of parity and the risk of cardiovascular disease. RESULTS: Ten cohort studies involving 150,512 incident cases of cardiovascular disease among 3,089,929 participants were included in the meta-analysis. A significant association between parity and cardiovascular disease risk was observed while comparing parity with nulliparity, with a summarised relative risk of 1.14 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.18; I2 = 62.0%, P = 0.002). In the dose-response analysis, we observed a potential non-linear J-shaped dose-response relationship between the number of parity and cardiovascular disease risk, the summary risk estimates for an increase of one live birth was 1.04 (95% CI 1.02-1.05), with significant heterogeneity ( I2 = 89.6%). In addition, the similar J-shaped associations between parturition number and cardiovascular disease, ischaemic heart disease or stroke risk were also observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that ever parity is related to cardiovascular disease risk and there is an association between the number of pregnancies and the risk of cardiovascular disease. Since the number of included studies was limited, further studies are warranted to confirm our findings.
BACKGROUND: Parity has been reported to play an important role in the development of cardiovascular disease; however, the results are still controversial. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of cohort studies to assess quantitatively the association between parity and cardiovascular disease risk. METHODS: PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched to 1 June 2018, supplemented by manual searches of the bibliographies of retrieved articles. And multivariate-adjusted relative risks were pooled by using random-effects models. Restricted cubic spline analysis with four knots was used to explore the relationship of parity and the risk of cardiovascular disease. RESULTS: Ten cohort studies involving 150,512 incident cases of cardiovascular disease among 3,089,929 participants were included in the meta-analysis. A significant association between parity and cardiovascular disease risk was observed while comparing parity with nulliparity, with a summarised relative risk of 1.14 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.18; I2 = 62.0%, P = 0.002). In the dose-response analysis, we observed a potential non-linear J-shaped dose-response relationship between the number of parity and cardiovascular disease risk, the summary risk estimates for an increase of one live birth was 1.04 (95% CI 1.02-1.05), with significant heterogeneity ( I2 = 89.6%). In addition, the similar J-shaped associations between parturition number and cardiovascular disease, ischaemic heart disease or stroke risk were also observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that ever parity is related to cardiovascular disease risk and there is an association between the number of pregnancies and the risk of cardiovascular disease. Since the number of included studies was limited, further studies are warranted to confirm our findings.
Authors: Mark B Badrov; Jeung-Ki Yoo; Craig D Steinback; Margie H Davenport; Qi Fu Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2020-03-06 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Michael C Honigberg; Hilde Kristin Refvik Riise; Anne Kjersti Daltveit; Grethe S Tell; Gerhard Sulo; Jannicke Igland; Kari Klungsøyr; Nandita S Scott; Malissa J Wood; Pradeep Natarajan; Janet W Rich-Edwards Journal: Hypertension Date: 2020-08-24 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Anna C O'Kelly; Erin D Michos; Chrisandra L Shufelt; Jane V Vermunt; Margo B Minissian; Odayme Quesada; Graeme N Smith; Janet W Rich-Edwards; Vesna D Garovic; Samar R El Khoudary; Michael C Honigberg Journal: Circ Res Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 17.367
Authors: Carla P Rodriguez; Oluseye Ogunmoroti; Renato Quispe; Olatokunbo Osibogun; Chiadi E Ndumele; Justin Echouffo Tcheugui; Anum S Minhas; Alain G Bertoni; Matthew A Allison; Erin D Michos Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2021-11-05 Impact factor: 3.017
Authors: Gerald F Watts; Samuel S Gidding; Pedro Mata; Jing Pang; David R Sullivan; Shizuya Yamashita; Frederick J Raal; Raul D Santos; Kausik K Ray Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 32.419
Authors: Win Pa Pa Thu; Inger Sundström-Poromaa; Susan Logan; Michael S Kramer; Eu-Leong Yong Journal: Hypertens Res Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 3.872
Authors: Anna L Beale; Carmela Cosentino; Louise Segan; Justin A Mariani; Donna Vizi; Shona Evans; Shane Nanayakkara; David M Kaye Journal: ESC Heart Fail Date: 2020-01-20