Evidence Hub

Risk of stroke or myocardial infarction hospitalisation following hospitalisation for community-acquired pneumonia in Portugal: a self-controlled case series study

Joana Carneiro, Andreia Leite, M. Lahuerta, J. Catusse, Mohammad Ali, Rita Teixeira, Silvia Lopes

BMJ Open, 2025

13 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Objectives We aimed to assess the risk of cardiovascular hospitalisations (stroke or myocardial infarction (MI)) following a community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) hospitalisation in a large Portuguese administrative dataset. Design Self-controlled case series study. Setting We used hospitalisation data from National Health Service hospitals across Portugal between 2010 and 2018. Participants Adults hospitalised for both CAP and stroke/MI in Portugal during the 2010-2018 period (n=13 494, of which 10 400 with stroke and 3094 with MI). Primary and secondary outcome measures We considered CAP hospitalisation as the exposure (14-, 28- and 91-day exposure periods) and acute cardiovascular (stroke or MI) hospitalisations as the outcome. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were computed using a conditional Poisson regression (overall and by sex and age subgroups). Results Patients were mostly male and above 75 years. Stroke/MI hospitalisation incidence was higher following CAP, compared with the baseline period. Largest differences were observed in the 14-day period after discharge (IRR for stroke: 2.55, 95% CI: 2.33–2.80; IRR for MI: 3.23, 2.78–3.75), compared with the 28-day (IRR for stroke: 2.06, 1.92–2.22; IRR for MI: 2.62, 2.32–2.95) and 91-day periods (IRR for stroke: 1.37, 1.30–1.44; IRR for MI: 1.75, 1.60–1.91). A similar trend was observed for sex and age subgroups. Conclusions Our study shows an increased risk of stroke/MI for CAP patients, particularly during the first 2 weeks…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 13 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free