XML Feed for RxPG News   Add RxPG News Headlines to My Yahoo!   Javascript Syndication for RxPG News

Research Health World General
 
  Home
 
 Latest Research
 Cancer
 Psychiatry
 Genetics
 Surgery
 Aging
 Ophthalmology
 Gynaecology
 Neurosciences
 Pharmacology
 Cardiology
  Hypertension
  CAD
  Myocardial Infarction
  CHF
  Clinical Trials
 Obstetrics
 Infectious Diseases
 Respiratory Medicine
 Pathology
 Endocrinology
 Immunology
 Nephrology
 Gastroenterology
 Biotechnology
 Radiology
 Dermatology
 Microbiology
 Haematology
 Dental
 ENT
 Environment
 Embryology
 Orthopedics
 Metabolism
 Anaethesia
 Paediatrics
 Public Health
 Urology
 Musculoskeletal
 Clinical Trials
 Physiology
 Biochemistry
 Cytology
 Traumatology
 Rheumatology
 
 Medical News
 Health
 Opinion
 Healthcare
 Professionals
 Launch
 Awards & Prizes
 
 Careers
 Medical
 Nursing
 Dental
 
 Special Topics
 Euthanasia
 Ethics
 Evolution
 Odd Medical News
 Feature
 
 World News
 Tsunami
 Epidemics
 Climate
 Business
Search

Last Updated: Aug 19th, 2006 - 22:18:38

European Heart Journal

Myocardial Infarction Channel
subscribe to Myocardial Infarction newsletter

Latest Research : Cardiology : Myocardial Infarction

   DISCUSS   |   EMAIL   |   PRINT
Chronic noise exposure increase risk of heart attacks
Nov 25, 2005, 05:59, Reviewed by: Dr.

The researchers also found that risk did not rise in concert with rising noise levels. "This means we seem to be looking at a threshold at which risk occurs and remains constant above this, and this appears to be around 60 decibels," said Dr Willich. Sixty decibels is the level of noise typically experienced, for example, in a busy large office.

 
Research published online today (Thursday 24 November) in European's leading cardiology journal, European Heart Journal, links exposure to chronic noise with an increased risk of heart attack. Furthermore, the risk seems to be associated more with the physiological effect of environmental and work noise than with the annoyance it causes individuals, although there are differences in effects between men and women.

Findings have prompted researchers from Charité University Medical Centre in Berlin, Germany, to call for the level requiring workplace ear protection to be lowered from the current 85 decibels, widely used in western Europe, to somewhere between 65 and 75 decibels. They believe this is especially important for people with existing cardiovascular disease.

In a case-control study involving all 32 hospitals in Berlin between 1998 and 2001, the researchers compared over 2,000 heart attack patients with over 2,000 control patients admitted to trauma and general surgery departments. Of the 4,115 total, about three-quarters were men and a quarter was women. The mean age of the men was 56 and the mean age of the women was 58.

The NaRoMI (Noise and Risk of Myocardial Infarction) study was designed to determine the association between chronic noise and the risk of heart attacks in men and in women and to assess the risks of subjective annoyance and objective noise levels in the environment and the workplace. The research team used interviews and independent environmental and work noise assessments in their analysis. The findings apply to men and women under 70 living in cities, who had non-fatal heart attacks.

Lead author Dr Stefan Willich, Director of the Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics at the medical centre, said: "Our results demonstrate that chronic noise exposure is associated with a mildly to moderately increased risk of heart attack. The increase appears more closely associated with actual sound levels rather than with subjective annoyance. However, there were differences between men and women and these need further investigation."

General environmental noise, such as that of traffic, affected both sexes, increasing the risk of heart attack by nearly 50% for men and by about three-fold for women. Workplace noise levels increased the risk for men by nearly a third, but did not affect women's risk.

Where the individual's subjective reaction of annoyance was concerned, environmental noise had no effect on men, but marginally increased women's risk. However, the situation was reversed for workplace noise, with the risk for men from annoyance rising by nearly a third but with no effect in women.

Dr Willich said that the differences between men and women may be because women tend to spend more time at home and were generally less exposed to loud workplace noise. Most previous studies on noise had concentrated on men and this was the first to find evidence of an effect in women, so the results on women needed confirming. "However, gender-specific reaction and pathophysiological response also seems possible and we should investigate this," he said.

The researchers also found that risk did not rise in concert with rising noise levels. "This means we seem to be looking at a threshold at which risk occurs and remains constant above this, and this appears to be around 60 decibels," said Dr Willich. Sixty decibels is the level of noise typically experienced, for example, in a busy large office.

The findings were consistent with a hypothesis that there is an association between long-term noise exposure and risk of cardiovascular disease, according to Dr Willich. (The study did not look at transitional exposure, such as driving to work. Nor did it include rural populations or people over 70).

A mechanism that might explain the link, said Dr Willich, was that noise could increase psychological stress and anger, leading to physiological changes in the body such as increased levels of adrenaline and noradrenaline, which are associated with increased blood pressure and plasma lipids.

"Such a mechanism may be further modified by personal parameters – smoking or pressure from meeting deadlines. In that case, chronic noise would be the equivalent of an outside risk factor contributing to atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease."

His team plan further studies. But, in the meantime, their findings have convinced them that the current levels of 85 decibels (equivalent to road construction equipment, for example) are too high. "We should definitely be looking at something lower. The exact value is unclear, but somewhere between 65 and 75 decibels," he said. "It is particularly important to focus on people with known cardiovascular disease to improve prevention for them, either by not exposing them chronically to heavy noise or by lowering the threshold for protective wear."
 

- Thursday 24 November 2005 Online Issue of European's leading cardiology journal, European Heart Journal
 

eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org

 
Subscribe to Myocardial Infarction Newsletter
E-mail Address:

 

1 Noise burden and the risk of myocardial infarction. European Heart Journal. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehi658.

Related Myocardial Infarction News

Few athletes survive sudden cardiac arrest (SCA)
PlGF involved in Post Myocardial Infarction Healing Process
The key elements for success in the rapid treatment of heart attacks
Daily cocoa intake can save you from heart attack
Heartbreaks can trigger heart attacks in the healthy
Chronic noise exposure increase risk of heart attacks
Sweat is good indicator of impending heart attack
Darbepoietin offers significant protection to heart tissue from injury due to ischemia
Waist-to-hip ratio determines risk of a heart attack
Ambient air pollution linked with acute myocardial infarction


For any corrections of factual information, to contact the editors or to send any medical news or health news press releases, use feedback form

Top of Page

 

© Copyright 2004 onwards by RxPG Medical Solutions Private Limited
Contact Us