Evidence Hub

Source-Specific Air Pollution Including Ultrafine Particles and Risk of Myocardial Infarction: A Nationwide Cohort Study from Denmark

A. Poulsen, M. Sørensen, U. Hvidtfeldt, J. Christensen, J. Brandt, L. Frohn, M. Ketzel, Christopher Andersen et al.

Environmental Health Perspectives, 2023

26 citations

Abstract

Background: Air pollution is negatively associated with cardiovascular health. Impediments to efficient regulation include lack of knowledge about which sources of air pollution contributes most to health burden and few studies on effects of the potentially more potent ultrafine particles (UFP). Objective: The authors aimed to investigate myocardial infarction (MI) morbidity and specific types and sources of air pollution. Methods: We identified all persons living in Denmark in the period 2005–2017, age >50 y and never diagnosed with MI. We quantified 5-y running time-weighted mean concentrations of air pollution at residencies, both total and apportioned to traffic and nontraffic sources. We evaluated particulate matter (PM) with aerodynamic diameter ≤2.5μm (PM2.5), <0.1μm (UFP), elemental carbon (EC), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). We used Cox proportional hazards models, with adjustment for time-varying exposures, and personal and area-level demographic and socioeconomic covariates from high-quality administrative registers. Results: In this nationwide cohort of 1,964,702 persons (with 18 million person-years of follow-up and 71,285 cases of MI), UFP and PM2.5 were associated with increased risk of MI with hazard ratios (HRs) per interquartile range (IQR) of 1.040 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.025, 1.055] and 1.053 (95% CI: 1.035, 1.071), respectively. HRs per IQR of UFP and PM2.5 from nontraffic sources were similar to the total (1.034 and 1.051), whereas HRs for UFP and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

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