Socioeconomic status predicts second cardiovascular event in 29,226 survivors of a first myocardial infarction

Abstract

Background

Risk assessment post-myocardial infarction needs improvement, and risk factors derived from general populations apply differently in secondary prevention. The prediction of subsequent cardiovascular events post-myocardial infarction by socioeconomic status has previously been poorly studied.

Design

Swedish nationwide cohort study.

Methods

A total of 29,226 men and women (27%), 40–76 years of age, registered at the standardised one year revisit after a first myocardial infarction in the secondary prevention quality registry of SWEDEHEART 2006–2014. Personal-level data on socioeconomic status measured by disposable income and educational level, marital status, and the primary endpoint, first recurrent event of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, defined as non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary heart disease death or fatal or non-fatal stroke were obtained from linked national registries.

Results

During the mean 4.1-year follow-up, 2284 (7.8%) first recurrent manifestations of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease occurred. Both socioeconomic status indicators and marital status were associated with the primary endpoint in multivariable Cox regression models. In a comprehensively adjusted model, including secondary preventive treatment, the hazard ratio for the highest versus lowest quintile of disposable income was 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.62–0.83). The association between disposable income and first recurrent manifestation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease was stronger in men as was the risk associated with being unmarried (tests for interaction P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Among one year survivors of a first myocardial infarction, first recurrent manifestation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease was predicted by disposable income, level of education and marital status. The association between disposable income and first recurrent manifestation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease was independent of secondary preventive treatment but further study on causal pathways is needed.

Keywords

Social class secondary prevention cardiovascular disease myocardial infarction stroke

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Mackenbach

Stirbu

Roskam

A-JR

et al.

Socioeconomic inequalities in health in 22 European countries. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 2468–2481.

Kaplan

Keil

. Socioeconomic factors and cardiovascular disease – a review of the literature. Circulation 1993; 88: 1973–1998.

Winkleby

Jatulis

Frank

et al.

Socioeconomic status and health – how education, income, and occupation contribute to risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Am J Public Health 1992; 82: 816–820.

Ali

Bhaskarapillai

Shivashankar

et al.

Socioeconomic status and cardiovascular risk in urban South Asia: the CARRS Study. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2016; 23: 408–419.

Fiscella

. Should years of schooling be used to guide treatment of coronary risk factors? Ann Family Med 2004; 2: 469–473.

Clark

DesMeules

Luo

et al.

Socioeconomic status and cardiovascular disease: risks and implications for care. Nat Rev Cardiol 2009; 6: 712–722.

Alter

Naylor

Austin

et al.

Effects of socioeconomic status on access to invasive cardiac procedures and on mortality after acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1359–1367.

Schroder

Richter

Schroder

et al.

Socioeconomic inequalities in access to treatment for coronary heart disease: a systematic review. Int J Cardiol 2016; 219: 70–78.

Niu

Zhao

Zhu

et al.

The association between socioeconomic status of high-risk patients with coronary heart disease and the treatment rates of evidence-based medicine for coronary heart disease secondary prevention in China: results from the Bridging the Gap on CHD Secondary Prevention in China (BRIG) Project. Am Heart J 2009; 157: 709–715.

10.

Wallach-Kildemoes

Andersen

Diderichsen

et al.

Adherence to preventive statin therapy according to socioeconomic position. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2013; 69: 1553–1563.

11.

Beauchamp

Peeters

Tonkin

et al.

Best practice for prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease through an equity lens: a review. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2010; 17: 599–606.

12.

Gerber

Koton

Goldbourt

et al.

Poor neighborhood socioeconomic status and risk of ischemic stroke after myocardial infarction. Epidemiology 2011; 22: 162–169.

13.

Koren

Steinberg

Drory

et al.

Socioeconomic environment and recurrent coronary events after initial myocardial infarction. Ann Epidemiol 2012; 22: 541–546.

14.

Notara

Panagiotakos

Pitsavos

. Secondary prevention of acute coronary syndrome. Socioeconomic and lifestyle determinants: a literature review. Cent Eur J Public Health 2014; 22: 175–182.

15.

Hedblad

Rosvall

et al.

Stroke incidence, recurrence, and case-fatality in relation to socioeconomic position: a population-based study of middle-aged Swedish men and women. Stroke 2008; 39: 2191–2196.

16.

Jernberg

Attebring

Hambraeus

et al.

The Swedish Web-system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based care in Heart disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies (SWEDEHEART). Heart 2010; 96: 1617–1621.

17.

Emilsson

Lindahl

Koster

et al.

Review of 103 Swedish healthcare quality registries. J Intern Med 2015; 277: 94–136.

18.

Ludvigsson

Andersson

Ekbom

et al.

External review and validation of the Swedish national inpatient register. BMC Public Health 2011; 11: 16–16.

19.

Ludvigsson

Otterblad-Olausson

Pettersson

et al.

The Swedish personal identity number: possibilities and pitfalls in healthcare and medical research. Eur J Epidemiol 2009; 24: 659–667.

20.

Jernberg T. Uppsala Clinical Reseach Center (UCR). SWEDEHEART Annual Report 2014. Uppsala, Sweden, 2015.

21.

Statistics Sweden (SCB). Longitudinal integration database for health insurance and labour market studies (LISA). www.scb.se/lisa-en (2008, accessed 28 October 2016).

22.

Havranek

Mujahid

Barr

et al.

Social determinants of risk and outcomes for cardiovascular disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2015; 132: 873–898.

23.

Goff

Lloyd-Jones

Bennett

et al.

2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 63: 2935–2959.

24.

Textor

Hardt

Knuppel

. DAGitty: a graphical tool for analyzing causal diagrams. Epidemiology 2011; 22: 745–745.

25.

Tyden

Engstrom

Hansen

et al.

Geographical pattern of female deaths from myocardial infarction in an urban population: fatal outcome out-of-hospital related to socio-economic deprivation. J Intern Med 2001; 250: 201–207.

26.

Notara

Panagiotakos

Papataxiarchis

et al.

Depression and marital status determine the 10-year (2004–2014) prognosis in patients with acute coronary syndrome: the GREECS study. Psychol Health 2015; 30: 1116–1127.

27.

Green

Newman

Shaffer

et al.

Relation of patients living without a partner or spouse to being physically active after acute coronary syndromes (from the PULSE Accelerometry Substudy). Am J Cardiol 2013; 111: 1264–1269.

28.

Molloy

Hamer

Randall

et al.

Marital status and cardiac rehabilitation attendance: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2008; 15: 557–561.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

2.00 MB