Death of an offspring and parental risk of ischemic heart diseases: A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The death of a child is an extreme life event with potentially long-term health consequences. Knowledge about its association with ischemic heart diseases (IHDs) and acute myocardial infarction (AMI), however, is very limited. We investigated whether the death of an offspring is associated with the risk of IHD and AMI. METHODS AND
FINDINGS: We studied parents of live-born children recorded in the Danish (1973 to 2016) and the Swedish (1973 to 2014) Medical Birth Registers (n = 6,711,952; mean age at baseline 31 years, 53% women). We retrieved information on exposure, outcomes, and covariates by linking individual-level information from several nationwide registers. We analyzed the abovementioned associations using Poisson regression. A total of 126,522 (1.9%) parents lost at least 1 child during the study period. Bereaved parents had a higher risk of IHD and AMI than the nonbereaved [incidence rate ratios (IRRs) (95% confidence intervals (CIs)): 1.20 (1.18 to 1.23), P < 0.001 and 1.21 (1.17 to 1.25), P < 0.001, respectively]. The association was present not only in case of losses due to CVD or other natural causes, but also in case of unnatural deaths. The AMI risk was highest in the first week after the loss [IRR (95% CI): 3.67 (2.08 to 6.46), P < 0.001], but a 20% to 40% increased risk was observed throughout the whole follow-up period. Study limitations include the possibility of residual confounding by socioeconomic, lifestyle, or health-related factors and the potentially limited generalizability of our findings outside Scandinavia.
CONCLUSIONS: The death of an offspring was associated with an increased risk of IHD and AMI. The finding that the association was present also in case of losses due to unnatural causes, which are less likely to be confounded by cardiovascular risk factors clustering in families, suggests that stress-related mechanisms may also contribute to the observed associations.

Introduction

An increasing number of studies have suggested that the death of a spouse in middle and old age may increase the risk of cardiovascular mortality [1-4], particularly in the months following the loss [1,3]. Knowledge about the effect of bereavement on incident cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and of other types of losses is much more limited, though recently, a few studies have reported associations between the death of a spouse, a sibling, a child, or “a significant person” and increased risks of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, atrial fibrillation, and/or cardiovascular mortality [5-11].

As one of the most extreme forms of bereavement [12], the death of a child is considered a “catastrophic stressor” and is rated 6 on a 6-step scale by a widely used classification system of sources of stress [13]. Accepting the loss of a child—a task that according to several theories of bereavement is the most important for grief resolution—is very difficult for parents [14], as child mortality is very low in Western societies and is in sharp contrast with expectations about the life cycle. Parental grief is unusually intense and persistent and can hardly be fully resolved [11,15]. The loss of a child is more likely to result in complicated grief than the loss of other family members [16]. Compared to unexposed parents, bereaved parents have higher rates of mental illness [17], stress-related somatic diseases [18-21], and mortality [22-24] for several years after the loss.

To our knowledge, the association between the death of a child and the risk of incident AMI has been investigated only in one study [7]. Li and colleagues found an increased risk of AMI [7] among parents who lost a child younger than 18 years; the increased risk appeared only from the seventh year of follow-up [7]. Given the low prevalence of exposure, the low incidence of atherosclerotic CVDs in early and mid-adulthood, and the observed modest association, the study of Li and colleagues did not have sufficient statistical power to analyze the importance of the type of death, potential effect modifiers of this association, nor short-term effects after the loss; a few earlier studies have suggested that the death of other type of family members may trigger AMI [5,8]. Furthermore, the death of an adult child—not considered in the study of Li and colleagues [7]—could also be associated with an increased risk of adverse health outcomes [18,23,24]. In addition to AMI, the death of a child may increase the risk of other, less severe ischemic heart diseases (IHDs) such as angina pectoris and atherosclerosis that may eventually lead to an AMI. Modern medical technology allows an early detection of IHD, with implications for the prevention of AMI. However, the association between the death of a child and the risk of overall IHDs has not yet been studied.

In this population-based study using nationwide data from Denmark and Sweden, we investigated whether the death of an offspring is associated with an increased risk of IHD and AMI and whether these associations differ according to the time since loss, characteristics of the loss, and parental sociodemographic factors.

Methods

Study population and study design

We studied parents of live-born children included in the Danish Medical Birth Register (MBR) during 1973 to 2016 (n = 2,807,548) and in the Swedish MBR during 1973 to 2014 (n = 3,924,237) [11]. Children registered in the MBRs were linked to their parents by means of the Civil Registration System in Denmark and the Multi-Generation Register in Sweden. Information on mothers was available for virtually all children; we had information on fathers for almost all the Danish children and for 83% of the Swedish children, resulting in 6,731,785 parents being included in the parental cohort. We also identified children of these parents that were born before 1973, or outside Denmark/Sweden, but who were registered later in these countries.

To obtain information on parents and their family members, we linked the cohort to several other registers (S1 Table) using the unique personal identification number [11]. Since the coverage of the Danish National Hospital Register became complete in 1978 and that of the Swedish Patient Register in 1987, we defined the study period as 1978 to 2016 for the Danish and 1987 to 2014 for the Swedish parents [11]. Parents entered the cohort at the start of the study period (January 1, 1978 in Denmark and January 1, 1987 in Sweden) if they had at least 1 child at that time, otherwise on the date of birth of the first child in Denmark/Sweden or upon immigration with child(ren) to these countries, whichever came later during the study period (S1 Fig). Parents were included in our analyses if, at the start of the follow-up, they (1) were alive and resided in Denmark or Sweden; (2) had at least 1 live child; and (3) had no record of IHD [11]. Follow-up ended at the time of the first diagnosis of IHD/AMI, death, emigration, or December 31, 2016 (Denmark) or December 31, 2014 (Sweden), whichever came first.

The study was approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency in Copenhagen and the Ethics Review Board in Stockholm. Our prespecified analysis plan is presented in the Supporting information (S1 Analysis plan). We followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines when writing the manuscript (S1 STROBE Checklist).

Exposure

We obtained information on children’s death from the Civil Registration System in Denmark and from the Cause of Death Register in Sweden. We defined exposure as death of a child after cohort entry and treated it as a time-varying variable, i.e., parents who lost a child contributed person-time to the unexposed group until the child’s death and to the exposed group afterwards [11]. Parents who did not lose a child contributed person-time only to the unexposed group. In case of losses of several children during the follow-up, we considered the first loss. We classified bereaved parents according to the child’s main cause of death (due to CVD, other natural causes, or unnatural causes, using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes in S2 Table), the children’s age at loss (≤1, 2 to 12, 13 to 18, 19 to 29, or >29 years) and the number of live children at the time of loss (0, 1 to 2, or ≥3) [11].

Outcomes

The outcomes were a main diagnosis or death due to IHD or AMI as retrieved from the National Hospital Register and the Civil Registration System in Denmark and from the Patient Register and the Cause of Death Register in Sweden using the ICD codes presented in S2 Table.

Covariates

We obtained information on study participants’ demographic characteristics, including sex, age, country of birth, education, marital status, and income from several nationwide registries [11], as described in S1 Table. We classified income based on the tertile distribution of each 10-year interval. We defined marital status, highest education, and income based on information from the year before cohort entry. If information for the corresponding year was lacking, we used data from the year closest to study entry by checking back up to the fifth year [11]. For the Danish participants who entered the study in 1980 or earlier, we used information on income from 1980 (the first year with available data). For the Swedish participants who entered the cohort in 1990 or earlier, we used information on education from 1990 (the first year with available data) [11].

We defined study participants’ history of CVD (except for IHD) and psychiatric disorders and on family (i.e., parents’ and siblings’) history of CVD at baseline using information from several nationwide registries on healthcare and death (S1 Table). For the Swedish mothers, we retrieved information on pregestational or gestational hypertension and diabetes and on smoking and obesity in early pregnancy from the Swedish MBR [11]. For the Danish mothers, we obtained information on diagnoses of pregestational or gestational hypertension and diabetes from the Danish National Hospital Register and on smoking and obesity in early pregnancy from the Danish MBR. The ICD codes used to identify these medical conditions are presented in S2 Table.

Statistical analyses

We compared baseline characteristics of the exposed and the unexposed groups by means of Student t tests in case of continuous variables and chi-squared tests in case of categorical variables. We used Poisson regression to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for the association between the death of a child and parental risk of incident IHD and AMI. Although we included almost all parents who gave birth to at least a child in Denmark or Sweden during our study period, we also calculated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to infer our findings to a theoretical larger group of potential parents.

We performed analyses with any loss and with exposure categorized according to the deceased child’s (1) cause of death; (2) age at death; and (3) the number of other children the parent had at the time of loss [11]. We performed 3 type of models: model 1, adjusted for age at follow-up (split at 5 years), model 2, adjusted for age (split at 5 years) and calendar year at follow-up (split at 10 years) as time-varying variables and sex, country of birth, highest education, and history of psychiatric disorders and of CVD as time-fixed variables, while model 3, adjusted for marital status, income, parents’ history of CVD, and siblings’ history of CVD (i.e., confounders with a high rate of missing data) in addition to variables in model 2. Criteria for including confounders in our multivariable models were (1) a known or an a priori considered plausible association with the death of a child and the risk of IHD and AMI; and (2) not being on the pathway between exposure and the outcome [25].

To visualize the changing pattern of the risk of AMI after bereavement, we performed analyses according to time since the loss (≤7 days, 8 to 30 days, 1 to 3 months, 3 to 12 months, 1 to 5 years, 5 to 10 years, or ≥10 years) [11]. In addition, we conducted a self-matched case-crossover analysis to test the hypothesis regarding a triggering effect of child’s death on AMI. The hazard period was defined as 0 to 1, 2 to 7, 0 to 7, or 0 to 30 days before AMI. The control period was defined using 2 approaches: (1) the usual frequency of a child’s death was calculated based on the period 30 to 180 or 30 to 365 days before the AMI; (2) the same days of the week, week of month, or month of year prior to AMI corresponding to the hazard period (S2 Fig). We used conditional logistic regression models to estimate relative risks and 95% CIs for the association of interest. Since each patient’s exposure period is matched to his/her own control period, the design may eliminate confounding by risk factors that were constant within study participants during the exposure and control periods.

To investigate effect modification by country, sex, age, and education, we ran analyses stratified by these variables. To explore the robustness of our results, we performed several sensitivity analyses, i.e., we (1) excluded study participants who lost a child before baseline; and (2) adjusted for smoking and obesity in early pregnancy and pregestational and gestational hypertension and diabetes before baseline among women with data on these variables [11]. To address concerns about missing data for some covariates, we imputed missing data by 5 replications through the fully conditional specification using logistic regression [26]. After the multiple imputation for the missing data, we reran models 2 and 3.

We performed analyses using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, US).

Results

A total of 126,522 parents (1.9% of the study participants) lost at least 1 child during the study period (Fig 1). A comparison between the exposed and unexposed parents is presented in Table 1.

Fig 1

Flow chart of the study.

Table 1

Characteristics of the study population according to the death of a child.

Variables	Exposed to the death of a child
	Unexposed (n = 6,585,430)	Exposed (n = 126,522)	P *
	N (%)	N (%)
Age/Mean (SD), years	30.7 (6.6)	31.2 (7.7)	<0.001
Sex			<0.001
Men	3,085,769 (46.9)	56,743 (44.8)
Women	3,499,661 (53.1)	69,779 (55.2)
Country of birth			<0.001
Denmark or Sweden	5,770,503 (87.6)	112,364 (88.8)
Other countries	814,927 (12.4)	14,158 (11.2)
Year of entry in the study			<0.001
Before 1980	699,782 (10.6)	30,495 (24.1)
1980–1989	2,302,881 (35.0)	62,555 (49.4)
1990–1999	1,369,476 (20.8)	19,892 (15.7)
2000–2009	1,381,774 (21.0)	10,406 (8.2)
After 2009	831,517 (12.6)	3,174 (2.5)
Marital status at baseline			<0.001
Married or in registered partnership	3,002,351 (45.6)	65,738 (52.0)
Single, widowed, or divorced	2,577,992 (39.1)	37,437 (29.6)
Missing	1,005,087 (15.3)	23,347 (18.4)
Highest education at baseline			<0.001
0–9 years	1,416,750 (21.5)	44,124 (34.9)
10–14 years	3,584,453 (54.4)	61,633 (48.7)
≥15 years	1,266,295 (19.2)	15,374 (12.2)
Missing	317,932 (4.8)	5,391 (4.3)
Income			<0.001
Low tertile	1,872,611 (28.4)	34,204 (27.0)
Middle tertile	1,877,245 (28.5)	29,699 (23.5)
High tertile	1,881,875 (28.6)	27,301 (21.6)
Missing	953,699 (14.5)	35,348 (27.9)
History of CVD at baseline†			<0.001
No	6,435,984 (97.7)	124,072 (98.1)
Yes	149,446 (2.3)	2,450 (1.9)
History of psychiatric disorders at baseline			<0.001
No	6,322,878 (96.0)	121,903 (96.3)
Yes	262,552 (4.00)	4,619 (3.7)
Parents’ history of CVD			<0.001
No	3,787,823 (57.5)	62,495 (49.4)
Yes	1,580,759 (24.0)	27,903 (22.1)
Missing	1,216,848 (18.5)	36,189 (28.6)
Sibling’s history of CVD			<0.001
No	5,213,542 (79.2)	88,213 (69.7)
Yes	155,040 (2.4)	2,185 (1.7)
Missing	1,216,848 (18.5)	36,189 (28.6)
Hypertension before or during pregnancy at baseline‡			<0.001
No	3,371,167 (96.3)	67,452 (96.7)
Yes	114,447 (3.3)	1,835 (2.6)
Missing	14,047 (0.4)	492 (0.7)
Diabetes before or during pregnancy at baseline‡			<0.001
No	3,460,882 (98.9)	68,911 (98.8)
Yes	24,732 (0.7)	376 (0.5)
Missing	14,047 (0.4)	492 (0.7)
Smoking in early pregnancy at baseline‡			<0.001
No	1,845,976 (52.7)	19,519 (28.0)
Yes	397,433 (11.4)	8,105 (11.6)
Missing	1,256,252 (35.9)	42,155 (60.4)
Obesity in early pregnancy at baseline‡			0.006
No	1,515,034 (43.3)	16,615 (23.8)
Yes	125,263 (3.6)	1,267 (1.8)
Missing	1,859,364 (53.1)	51,897 (74.4)

CVD, cardiovascular diseases; IHD, ischemic heart disease; SD, standard deviation.

*The p-values corresponds to differences between the exposure groups in Student t tests in case of continuous variables and chi-squared tests in case of categorical variables.

†Except for IHDs.

‡Available only for the women.

During the median 21-year follow-up, 297,399 parents were diagnosed with IHD and 146,739 with an AMI. Bereaved parents had higher risks of IHD and AMI than the nonbereaved parents; the adjusted IRRs and 95% CIs were [1.20 (1.18 to 1.23), P < 0.001] and [1.21 (1.17 to 1.25), P < 0.001], respectively. The risks of IHD and AMI were highest if the child died due to CVD but were increased also after losses due to other natural or unnatural causes (Table 2). There was a trend towards a U-shaped association between the deceased child’s age at loss and the parent’s risk of IHD and AMI. The associations were slightly stronger among parents with 3 or more children at the time of loss than the parents with fewer children (Table 2). Bereaved parents had a more than 3-fold increased risk of AMI in the first week after the death of a child [IRR (95% CI): 3.67 (2.08 to 6.46), P < 0.001] and about 20% to 40% increased risk during the rest of the follow-up (except during 8 to 30 days after the loss) relative to nonbereaved (Fig 2). Similarly, in the case-crossover analysis, we observed 2.4 to 3 times higher AMI risk in the first week after the death of a child than in the control periods (S3 Table).

Table 2

Adjusted IRRs and 95% CIs for IHD according to the death of a child.

Exposure	IHD							AMI
	Rate*	Model 1† (N = 6,711,952)		Model 2‡ (N = 6,388,629)		Model 3⁋ (N = 4,512,391)		Rate*	Model 1† (N = 6,711,952)		Model 2‡ (N = 6,388,629)		Model 3⁋ (N = 4,512,391)
		IRR (95% CI)	P	IRR (95% CI)	P	IRR (95% CI)	P		IRR (95% CI)	P	IRR (95% CI)	P	IRR (95% CI)	P
Unexposed	222.5	1.00		1.00		1.00		108.7	1.00		1.00		1.00
All deaths	418.4	1.21 (1.18–1.24)	<0.001	1.20 (1.18–1.23)	<0.001	1.21 (1.17–1.26)	<0.001	205.7	1.18 (1.15–1.22)	<0.001	1.21 (1.17–1.25)	<0.001	1.22 (1.16–1.28)	<0.001
Cause of the child’s death
Death due to CVD	688.3	1.29 (1.17–1.42)	<0.001	1.32 (1.20–1.46)	<0.001	1.28 (1.11–1.49)	<0.001	381.8	1.39 (1.22–1.58)	<0.001	1.45 (1.27–1.66)	<0.001	1.40 (1.16–1.68)	<0.001
Other natural death	375.8	1.22 (1.18–1.25)	<0.001	1.21 (1.18–1.25)	<0.001	1.20 (1.14–1.26)	<0.001	180.5	1.17 (1.12–1.21)	<0.001	1.18 (1.14–1.23)	<0.001	1.21 (1.13–1.30)	<0.001
Unnatural death	553.8	1.17 (1.12–1.23)	<0.001	1.17 (1.12–1.23)	<0.001	1.21 (1.15–1.28)	<0.001	281.3	1.19 (1.12–1.27)	<0.001	1.23 (1.15–1.31)	<0.001	1.21 (1.12–1.30)	<0.001
Age of the deceased child at loss
≤1	224.4	1.31 (1.25–1.37)	<0.001	1.28 (1.22–1.34)	<0.001	1.29 (1.20–1.40)	<0.001	101.3	1.23 (1.15–1.32)	<0.001	1.22 (1.14–1.31)	<0.001	1.26 (1.13–1.41)	<0.001
2–12	291.2	1.15 (1.07–1.23)	<0.001	1.12 (1.05–1.20)	<0.001	1.10 (0.98–1.24)	0.115	133.3	1.08 (0.98–1.19)	0.118	1.06 (0.97–1.17)	0.213	1.14 (0.96–1.34)	0.131
13–18	460.8	1.12 (1.04–1.21)	0.003	1.11 (1.03–1.20)	0.004	1.07 (0.96–1.21)	0.228	213.2	1.06 (0.95–1.18)	0.324	1.06 (0.95–1.18)	0.285	1.07 (0.91–1.25)	0.432
19–29	643.3	1.18 (1.14–1.23)	<0.001	1.18 (1.13–1.23)	<0.001	1.20 (1.13–1.27)	<0.001	318.6	1.18 (1.12–1.25)	<0.001	1.20 (1.13–1.27)	<0.001	1.17 (1.08–1.27)	<0.001
>29	1035.1	1.22 (1.17–1.28)	<0.001	1.27 (1.21–1.34)	<0.001	1.27 (1.18–1.37)	<0.001	552.5	1.25 (1.18–1.34)	<0.001	1.35 (1.26–1.44)	<0.001	1.36 (1.24–1.49)	<0.001
Number of remaining live children at loss
0	228.2	1.19 (1.12–1.27)	<0.001	1.17 (1.10–1.25)	<0.001	1.24 (1.13–1.36)	<0.001	109.1	1.17 (1.07–1.28)	<0.001	1.17 (1.07–1.28)	<0.001	1.17 (1.02–1.34)	0.026
1–2	417.4	1.15 (1.12–1.19)	<0.001	1.17 (1.14–1.21)	<0.001	1.17 (1.12–1.23)	<0.001	197.8	1.10 (1.05–1.15)	<0.001	1.14 (1.09–1.19)	<0.001	1.16 (1.09–1.24)	<0.001
≥3	722.7	1.37 (1.31–1.44)	<0.001	1.32 (1.26–1.38)	<0.001	1.28 (1.20–1.38)	<0.001	384.4	1.42 (1.34–1.51)	<0.001	1.40 (1.32–1.48)	<0.001	1.38 (1.26–1.50)	<0.001

AMI, acute myocardial infarction; CI, confidence interval; CVD, cardiovascular disease; IHD, ischemic heart disease; IRR, incidence rate ratio.

*Per 100,000 person-years.

†Model 1 was adjusted for age at follow-up.

‡Model 2 was adjusted for sex, age at follow-up, calendar year at follow-up, country of birth, educational attainment, history of psychiatric disorders and of CVDs at baseline.

⁋Model 3 was adjusted for sex, age at follow-up, calendar year at follow-up, country of birth, educational attainment, marital status at baseline, income at baseline, history of psychiatric disorders and of CVDs at baseline, parents’ history of CVDs, and siblings’ history of CVDs.

Fig 2

IRRs and 95% CIs for AMI according to time since the death of a child.

*IR, incidence rate; the incidence rate (per 100,000 person-years) of AMI in the exposed group. AMI, acute myocardial infarction; CI, confidence interval; IRR, incidence rate ratio.

The associations between the death of a child and the risk of IHD and AMI were somewhat stronger among mothers than fathers, in Sweden than in Denmark, and among parents aged <50 years than those older (Table 3); there was no evidence of effect modification by education. The associations between the death of a child and the risk of IHD and AMI did not change substantially after (1) excluding study participants who lost a child before baseline, (2) controlling for pregestational and gestational hypertension and diabetes and maternal obesity in early pregnancy among women; the associations were slightly attenuated after adjusting for maternal smoking in early pregnancy, or (3) multiple imputation for missing data (S4 Table).

Table 3

Adjusted IRRs and 95% CIs for the association between the death of a child and the risk of IHD in stratified analyses.

Subgroups	IHD			AMI
	Rate/per 105 person-years	Multivariate IRR (95% CI)	P *	Rate/per 105 person-years	Multivariate IRR (95% CI)	P *
Sex †
Men	344.6	1.15 (1.11–1.18)		184.1	1.14 (1.09–1.18)
Women	121.2	1.31 (1.26–1.36)	<0.001	45.0	1.36 (1.28–1.45)	<0.001
Country
Denmark	249.7	1.12 (1.09–1.16)		106.9	1.17 (1.12–1.22)
Sweden	204.8	1.23 (1.18–1.27)	<0.001	112.6	1.24 (1.18–1.30)	<0.001
Age ‡
<50 years	51.9	1.53 (1.42–1.65)		23.7	1.53 (1.36–1.71)
≥50 years	455.4	1.19 (1.16–1.22)	<0.001	222.4	1.19 (1.15–1.23)	<0.001
Education ⁋
≤9 years	316.1	1.22 (1.18–1.26)		159.3	1.21 (1.15–1.27)
10–14	199.2	1.19 (1.14–1.23)	0.979	98.2	1.20 (1.14–1.26)	0.801
≥15 years	164.9	1.17 (1.08–1.27)	0.666	71.0	1.20 (1.06–1.34)	0.549

IRR = incidence rate ratio; CI = confidence intervals; CVD = cardiovascular disease.

* P-values are for the interaction terms between the exposure category and the effect modifier.

† Adjusted for age at follow-up, calendar year at follow-up, country of birth, educational attainment, history of psychiatric disorders and of cardiovascular diseases at baseline.

‡ Adjusted for sex, age at follow-up, calendar year at follow-up, country of birth, educational attainment, history of psychiatric disorders and of cardiovascular diseases at baseline.

⁋ Adjusted for sex, age at follow-up, calendar year at follow-up, country of birth, history of psychiatric disorders and of cardiovascular diseases at baseline.

Discussion

We found that the death of a child was associated with an increased risk of IHD and AMI. The associations were present not only when the loss was due to CVD or other natural causes, but also in case of unnatural deaths. The risks of IHD and AMI were slightly higher after loss of an infant or an adult child and if the parent had 3 or more remaining live children, compared with other losses. The risk of AMI was highest in the first week after the loss, but a modestly increased AMI risk persisted throughout the follow-up.

Comparison with earlier studies

Our finding that the death of a child was associated with an increased risk of IHD and AMI is consistent with earlier results that death of a spouse [5], parent [27], sibling [6], or a significant person [8] was associated with an increased AMI risk and that loss of a child was associated with increased risks of mental illness [17], diabetes [21], atrial fibrillation [11], and death [22-24]. In contrast, other studies found no relation between the loss of a child and the risk of stroke [28], rheumatoid arthritis [29], or inflammatory bowel diseases [30]. Our findings corroborate those of Li and colleagues showing that the death of a child younger than 18 was associated with an approximately 30% increased AMI risk during the 17-year follow-up [7]. Our larger sample size, longer follow-up, and wider definition of exposure allowed us to extend the results of this earlier study by exploring, in more detail and with better precision, the importance of the child’s cause of death, the child’s age at loss, time since loss, and effect modification by several sociodemographic factors.

An association between the death of a child and the risk of morbidity and mortality may have at least 2 explanations. One potential explanation is that bereavement may increase the risk of morbidity and mortality through adverse stress-related lifestyle and biological changes [31]. An alternative explanation is that the genetic and environmental factors that contributed to the relative’s death may increase the risk of similar diseases also in family members [31]. To try to separate the effect of grief after the death of a child from that of confounding by cardiovascular risk factors that cluster in families, we performed analyses with exposure classified according to the child’s cause of death. As expected, the associations between bereavement and IHD and AMI were strongest in case of losses of children due to CVD, suggesting that confounding by familial cardiovascular risk factors may in part contribute to the explanation of our findings. Nevertheless, the fact that losses due to unnatural causes and of minor children, which are less likely to be prone to confounding by unmeasured cardiovascular risk factors that cluster in families, were also associated with IHD and AMI risks may suggest that stress-related mechanisms may also be of importance. Li and colleagues also reported an association between the loss of a minor child and an increased risk of AMI in the parents and that the risk was particularly high if the child died due to sudden infant death syndrome [7]. Moreover, the particularly high AMI risk during the first week after the loss of a child, which is unlikely to be explained by confounding, may also be supportive of a causal association.

The explanations for the U-shaped relationship between the child’s age at loss and the parent’s risk of AMI/IHD are not clear. Because parental morbidity in the prenatal period may increase the risk of several conditions that are the leading causes of infant mortality in the Western world, i.e., congenital malformations, preterm birth, birth asphyxia, and sudden infant death syndrome [32], and because women with children born preterm [33-36], with fetal growth restriction [34] or congenital malformations [37] have increased CVD risks, we speculate that a possible explanation for the slightly stronger association for the loss of an infant than that of older children could be residual confounding by parental subclinical cardiometabolic diseases. Alternatively, as suggested also by Li and colleagues, sudden infant death syndrome, an important cause of infant mortality, may increase parents’ risk of IHD also through stress-related mechanisms [7]. A sudden or unnatural death is often more stressful and more likely to be associated with complicated grief than a loss due to natural causes. Similarly, the higher IHD risk after the death of an adult child, compared with the death of a minor, not infant, child, could be due to residual confounding by parental subclinical diseases at baseline or unmeasured familial cardiovascular risk factors, or to a stronger emotional bond between parents and adult children. The latter explanation may be consistent with the observed stronger association in women than men; mothers have often stronger emotional bonds with their children and have been shown to have higher relative risks of mental illness [17], diabetes [21], and mortality [22,24] than fathers following the loss of a child. Furthermore, losing a child aged 30 years or older may also involve an increased burden for parents in terms of emotional, practical, and financial support for their affected grandchildren. Similarly, though the presence of other children at the time of the loss may help to alleviate grief [15] and buffer its adverse health effects [17,22,24], our finding that having 3 or more live children at the time of loss was associated with higher IHD and AMI risks than losing the only child—a finding similar to those reported by Li and colleagues [7]—may be indicative of higher stress arising from difficulties in combining own grief work with the care for the remaining children.

Potential linking mechanisms

The mechanisms by which the death of a child may increase the risk of IHD and AMI may involve acute and chronic processes. Bereavement stress stimulates the activation of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenocortical axis and of the sympathetic nervous system, which, in turn, leads to a short-term increased inflammatory activity, elevated cortisol levels, total cholesterol, blood pressure, and heart rate, and reduction of heart rate variability and high-density lipoprotein [1,38-40], which, in turn, could trigger AMI [41]. Our results that the risk of AMI was highest in the week after the loss are in line with several studies documenting particularly high risks of mental disorders [17], AMI [5,8], stroke [5], atrial fibrillation [11,42], cardiovascular [6,10] and total mortality [22,24,31] shortly after bereavement and is supportive of a triggering effect. In addition, bereavement may induce depression, anxiety, anger, poor sleep, poor appetite, and alcohol abuse [1,40], which are associated with an increased risk of cardiac events both in the short and the long term [41]. In the long term, the death of a child is likely to result in complicated and prolonged grief [16]. Chronic bereavement stress and complicated grief may induce adverse changes in health behaviours and in endocrine, immune, vascular, and haemostatic activities contributing to further progression of atherosclerosis and thus increasing the risk of IHD and AMI. Li and colleagues found an increased AMI risk after the death of a child only from the seventh year of follow-up [7], possibly due to limited statistical power to explore short-term effects and due to the younger age of their study population. In line with the latter explanation, we also found a stronger association among the younger bereaved parents (age <50 years) than the older parents, indicating that the death of a child may contribute to the development of atherosclerosis.

Strengths and limitations

Several strengths of our study make the findings robust, i.e., the prespecified analysis plan, the population-based design, the collection of information on exposure and outcome independently of each other, and the high quality information on mortality and the diagnoses of IHD and AMI in the 2 patient registers [43,44]. The large sample size and the long follow-up provided sufficient statistical power to perform several subanalyses that might contribute to a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms. The availability of a large number of covariates reduces residual confounding. Our study has also several limitations. First, although we adjusted for several potential confounders, we may not exclude the possibility of residual confounding from genetic factors or unmeasured socioeconomic, lifestyle, or health-related factors shared by family members. However, our analyses according to the child’s cause of death showed that an increased IHD/AMI risk was present also when the child’s death was due to unnatural causes, which are less likely to be affected by familial factors. Second, our findings may only apply to countries with low child mortality, well-developed free-of-charge healthcare system, and sociocultural contexts comparable to those of Denmark and Sweden.

Conclusions

We found that the death of a child was associated with an increased risk of IHD and AMI. The findings that the association was present also in case of losses due to unnatural causes, which are less likely to be confounded by cardiovascular risk factors clustering in families, and that the risk of AMI was highest during the week after the loss suggests that stress-related mechanisms may contribute to the observed association. Our findings, if confirmed, call for intensive surveillance and early intervention from the healthcare system among bereaved parents, particularly during the first week after the loss of a child.

STROBE Statement—Checklist of items that should be included in reports of cohort studies.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Parental risk of AMI and IHD after the death of a child.

AMI, acute myocardial infarction; IHD, ischemic heart disease.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Follow-up of study participants.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

The matched-control period for the hazard period of 1 month before the index event of AMI.

AMI, acute myocardial infarction.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Population-based registers used to retrieve information for the study.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

The International Classification of Diseases codes used to identify the diagnoses and the causes of death.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Relative risks and 95% CIs for AMI shortly after the death of a child.

AMI, acute myocardial infarction; CI, confidence interval.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Adjusted IRRs and 95% CIs for the association between the death of a child and the risk of IHDs in sensitivity analyses.

CI, confidence interval; IHD, ischemic heart disease; IRR, incidence rate ratio.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

19 Feb 2021

Dear Dr Wei,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Death of an offspring and parental risk of ischemic heart diseases: A population-based cohort study" for consideration by PLOS Medicine.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Medicine editorial staff as well as by an academic editor with relevant expertise and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Please re-submit your manuscript within two working days, i.e. by .

Login to Editorial Manager here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed all checks it will be sent out for review.

Feel free to email us at plosmedicine@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Dr Raffaella Bosurgi

Executive Editor

PLOS Medicine

1 Jul 2021

Dear Dr. Wei,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Death of an offspring and parental risk of ischemic heart diseases: A population-based cohort study" (PMEDICINE-D-21-00668R1) for consideration at PLOS Medicine.

Your paper was discussed with an academic editor with relevant expertise and sent to independent reviewers, including a statistical reviewer. The reviews are appended at the bottom of this email and any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below:

[LINK]

In light of these reviews, we will not be able to accept the manuscript for publication in the journal in its current form, but we would like to invite you to submit a revised version that addresses the reviewers' and editors' comments fully. You will appreciate that we cannot make a decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response, and we expect to seek re-review by one or more of the reviewers.

In revising the manuscript for further consideration, your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments, the changes you have made in the manuscript, and include either an excerpt of the revised text or the location (eg: page and line number) where each change can be found. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file; a version with changes marked should be uploaded as a marked up manuscript.

In addition, we request that you upload any figures associated with your paper as individual TIF or EPS files with 300dpi resolution at resubmission; please read our figure guidelines for more information on our requirements: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/figures. While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the PACE digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at PLOSMedicine@plos.org.

We hope to receive your revised manuscript by Jul 22 2021 11:59PM. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement, making sure to declare all competing interests. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. If new competing interests are declared later in the revision process, this may also hold up the submission. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT. You can see our competing interests policy here: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/competing-interests.

Please use the following link to submit the revised manuscript:

https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/

Your article can be found in the "Submissions Needing Revision" folder.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and we look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Richard Turner, PhD

Senior Editor, PLOS Medicine

rturner@plos.org

-----------------------------------------------------------

Requests from the editors:

To your data statement (submission form), please add web addresses for the relevant data custodians for readers interested in inquiring about access to study data.

Please combine the "Methods" and "results" subsections of your abstract.

The final sentence of the new combined subsection should begin "Study limitations include ..." or similar and should quote 2-3 of the study's main limitations.

In the abstract and throughout the text, please include p values alongside 95% CI, where available.

Please remove the information on funding, competing interests and data access from between abstract and Introduction. In the event of publication, this information will appear only in the article metadata, via entries in the submission form.

After the abstract, please add a new and accessible "Author summary" section in non-identical prose. You may find it helpful to consult one or two recent research papers published in PLOS Medicine to get a sense of the preferred style.

Early in the Methods section of your main text, please state whether the study had a protocol or prespecified analysis plan, and if so attach the relevant document(s) as an attachment(s), referred to in the text.

Please highlight analyses that were not prespecified.

On p.8, please substitute "sex" for "gender" if appropriate, and at any other points in the ms.

Throughout the text, please adapt reference call-outs to the following style: "... following the loss [1,3]." (noting the absence of spaces within the square brackets).

Please use the journal name abbreviation "PLoS ONE" in your reference list.

Please ensure that reference 29 and any others needing them have full access details.

Please add a completed checklist for the most appropriate reporting guideline, e.g., STROBE, as an attachment, labelled "S1_STROBE_Checklist" and referred to as such in your Methods section.

In the checklist, please refer to individual items by section (e.g., "Methods") and paragraph number, not by line or page numbers as these generally change in the event of publication.

Comments from the reviewers:

*** Reviewer #1:

I confine my remarks to statistical aspects of this paper. These were very well done and I have only one issue to resolve before I can recommend publication.

The authors have an entire population. This makes the use of confidence intervals a bit troublesome. CIs are about inference from a sample to a population. When you have the whole population, there is no inference to be done and the CI should all be 0 width.

There are two options: The authors could delete the CI and not the above. On the other hand, some statisticians posit the existence of a "super-population" from which this population is randomly drawn (e.g. more countries, a longer time span, or something). I am not a big fan of this, but I wont object if the authors choose to go this route. But the issue should be addressed.

Otherwise - excellent job!

Peter Flom

*** Reviewer #2:

The authors submitted an interesting Research Article aiming at investigating whether the death of an offspring is associated with the risk of ischemic heart disease (IHD) and acute miocardici infarction (AMI). They found a significant association in case of losses due to CVD, or other natural causes, and also in case of unnatural deaths. So they concluded that the death of an offspring was associated with an increased risk of IHD and AMI. There's findings suggests that stress-related mechanisms may also contribute to the observed associations.

The manuscript is well written, even if more attention should be paid to English grammar and structure. Several typos are present through the whole manuscript and should be addressed before any acceptance for publication. The Authors should be commended for this tremendous work but some statistical issues should be refined in order to achieve more clarity and soundness. I recommend to show all the P-Values that here are missing in the text and the tables. A comparison between baseline characteristics between groups is also advisable, and than an adjustment for baseline statistical significant differences between groups will also helpful to better understand if many confounded have been addressed or not.

*** Reviewer #3:

This major study seeks to establish whether the death of an offspring is associated with the risk of IHD and AMI in Denmark (1973-2016) Sweden in the period 1973-2014 in the respective birth and linked health registers. 126,522 (1.9%) parents lost at least one child during the study period. The secondary outcome was 'unnatural deaths'. A total of >6.5M parents were followed. The comparison exposure group was non-bereaved parents. Parental fatal or nonfatal disease was determined in national registers. A large set of ICD codes was utilised, ranging from hypertension, diabetes to sudden coronary death. Major potential confounders of the association between parent-child bereavement are low income, low education and raised CVD risk including history of CVD. Such covariates were available in 80-95% of the population data, with gaps, e.g. little data on phenotypic CVD risk except in pregnancy. Multiple imputation could be utilized to fill in the missing data.

There would be increased clarity in this reviewer's reading for covariate stratified results to be presented second, in table 3 rather than 2 as at present. Table 2 could then focus on attenuation of the bereavement effect by adjustment for (1) the main a priori potential confounders, then (2) a further maximally adjusted model. It is unclear why the analysis is stratified according to IHD/AMI (tables 2 and 3). There does not seem to be a clear related hypothesis, and though there some marginally significant differences, the size of effects is so similar the stratification detracts from the paper and should be confined to sensitivity analyses. If the authors wish to hypothesise a specific link between bereavement and AMI then it should be more clearly articulated and analysed, comparing the time course of effect size with other outcomes.

The Discussion addresses the main expected topics, including key findings, past studies, bias, power and mechanisms. The precise role of the unnatural causes of death as comparator outcome could be better articulated, particularly whether this new study strengthens or weakens the accumulated evidence for a specific link between bereavement and CVD. I would prefer to see a more focused use of the terms 'bereavement stress' and 'grief' including in the abstract. Use of the general term 'stress' is widespread and can lack scientific coherence. For example there may be short or extended emotional grief responses to bereavement, followed by depressed mood, sadness and so on. Cognitive appraisal of the personal impact and meaning of the bereavement could affect health behaviours, independent of 'stress mechanisms'.

Eric Brunner

***

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

17 Aug 2021

Submitted filename: Response letter.docx

Click here for additional data file.

24 Aug 2021

Dear Dr. Wei,

Thank you very much for re-submitting your manuscript "Death of an offspring and parental risk of ischemic heart diseases: A population-based cohort study" (PMEDICINE-D-21-00668R2) for consideration at PLOS Medicine.

I have discussed the paper with our academic editor and it was also seen again by two reviewers. I am pleased to tell you that, provided the remaining editorial and production issues are fully dealt with, we expect to be able to accept the paper for publication in the journal.

The remaining issues that need to be addressed are listed at the end of this email. Any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below. Please take these into account before resubmitting your manuscript:

[LINK]

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

In revising the manuscript for further consideration here, please ensure you address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments and the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file. A version with changes marked must also be uploaded as a marked up manuscript file.

Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. If you haven't already, we ask that you provide a short, non-technical Author Summary of your research to make findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. The Author Summary should immediately follow the Abstract in your revised manuscript. This text is subject to editorial change and should be distinct from the scientific abstract.

We hope to receive your revised manuscript within 1 week. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT.

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

Please note, when your manuscript is accepted, an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you've already opted out via the online submission form. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online or are unsure if you have already indicated as such, please let the journal staff know immediately at plosmedicine@plos.org.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and we look forward to receiving the revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Richard Turner, PhD

Senior Editor, PLOS Medicine

rturner@plos.org

------------------------------------------------------------

Requests from Editors:

Please cite your recent paper (doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa1084) at an appropriate point in the paper (we became aware of this paper through an iThenticate check).

Please quote summary demographic details for study participants in the abstract.

At line 16 in the abstract please make that "follow-up period".

In the Summary points, the wording of the second and final point is very similar, and we ask you to amend these points to make them less repetitive.

Under "Strengths and limitations" in the Discussion section you mention the "... prospective design" as a strength, and we ask you to remove the word "prospective". You might wish to mention your prespecified analysis plan as a strength instead.

Please substitute "sex" in place of "gender" where appropriate (e.g., in table 1).

Please spell out the institutional author name for reference 12.

Comments from Reviewers:

*** Reviewer #1:

The authors have addressed my concerns and I now recommend publication

Peer Flom

*** Reviewer #2:

The manuscript significantly improved after revisions. I have no further comments or edits.

***

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

31 Aug 2021

Submitted filename: Response letter_revision 2_20210831.docx

Click here for additional data file.

1 Sep 2021

Dear Dr Wei,

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Dr Basu, I am pleased to inform you that we have agreed to publish your manuscript "Death of an offspring and parental risk of ischemic heart diseases: A population-based cohort study" (PMEDICINE-D-21-00668R3) in PLOS Medicine.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. Please be aware that it may take several days for you to receive this email; during this time no action is required by you. Once you have received these formatting requests, please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes.

In the meantime, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production process.

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with medicinepress@plos.org. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Thank you again for submitting to PLOS Medicine. We look forward to publishing your paper.

Sincerely,

Richard Turner, PhD

Senior Editor, PLOS Medicine

rturner@plos.org