4.5 Article

Risk of myocardial infarction and stroke in bipolar disorder: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis

期刊

ACTA PSYCHIATRICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 130, 期 5, 页码 342-353

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/acps.12293

关键词

bipolar disorder; cardiovascular diseases; myocardial infarction; stroke; meta-analysis

资金

  1. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) [UL1 TR000135]
  2. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research
  3. Government of Chile
  4. Myriad
  5. Pfizer
  6. National Alliance for Schizophrenia and Depression (NARSAD)
  7. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
  8. National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)
  9. Mayo Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveTo review the evidence on and estimate the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke in bipolar disorder. MethodA systematic search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and bibliographies (1946 - May, 2013) was conducted. Case-control and cohort studies of bipolar disorder patients age 15 or older with myocardial infarction or stroke as outcomes were included. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed quality. Estimates of effect were summarized using random-effects meta-analysis. ResultsFive cohort studies including 13115911 participants (27092 bipolar) were included. Due to the use of registers, different statistical methods, and inconsistent adjustment for confounders, there was significant methodological heterogeneity among studies. The exploratory meta-analysis yielded no evidence for a significant increase in the risk of myocardial infarction: [relative risk (RR): 1.09, 95% CI 0.96-1.24, P=0.20; I-2=6%]. While there was evidence of significant study heterogeneity, the risk of stroke in bipolar disorder was significantly increased (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.29-2.35; P=0.0003; I-2=83%). ConclusionThere may be a differential risk of myocardial infarction and stroke in patients with bipolar disorder. Confidence in these pooled estimates was limited by the small number of studies, significant heterogeneity and dissimilar methodological features.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据