Are sleep complaints an independent risk factor for myocardial infarction?

PURPOSE: To investigate whether subjective sleep complaints are an independent predictor of myocardial infarction (MI) in a community of older adults and to gain clues as to why the association between sleep complaints and incident MI exists. METHODS: Using longitudinal data from the Piedmont study on 2960 adults aged 65 or older who were free of symptomatic heart disease at baseline, we screened 19 potential confounders to determine if any, alone or in combination, could explain the observed relationship between incident MI and sleep complaints. RESULTS: During the three-year follow-up period, there were 152 incident MIs. Restless sleep (incidence density ratio (IDR) = 1.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.11, 2.24) and trouble falling asleep (IDR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.09, 2.60) predicted incident MI after adjusting for age, gender, and race. IDRs were not substantially impacted by controlling for smoking, blood pressure, diabetes or obesity. After adjustment for education, number of prescription medicines, self-rated health, and depression score, all IDRs were nullified. In particular, self-rated health and depression were strong independent risk factors for MI. CONCLUSIONS: A subjective sleep complaint increases the likelihood of a first MI in older adults without overt coronary heart disease (CHD) independently of classic coronary risk factors and appears to be a marker for a syndrome of depression and malaise that may have a causal relationship to MI.

Urinary symptom and quality of life questions indicative of obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia. Results of a pilot study.

In a pilot study of a urinary symptom and health-related quality-of-life questionnaire for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), responses from 64 Mayo Clinic patients with cystoscopic evidence of obstructive BPH were compared with those of 14 men with no cystoscopic evidence of BPH and a community sample of 64 comparably aged men with no medical history of prostate enlargement. Questions which best discriminated between the groups were those dealing with urinary symptom frequency, bother due to urinary symptoms, and worry and concern about urinary problems. The results suggest that urinary-symptom-bother and worry due to urinary symptoms may be important additions to the more usual questions asked about urinary frequency in the identification of men with BPH. These findings are preliminary, however, and will be verified in an ongoing natural history study of BPH.

Consistency of Doppler parameters in predicting arteriographically confirmed carotid stenosis. Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study Investigators.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: While internal carotid peak systolic velocity (IPSV) is reportedly the best Doppler parameter for predicting lower grades of carotid artery stenosis, the internal carotid end-diastolic velocity (IEDV) or the ratio of IPSV to common carotid end-diastolic velocity (CEDV) is helpful in increasing prediction of higher grade stenoses. It is important to examine the consistency of these findings across machine and technician. METHODS: Using data from 10 devices from the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study, we examined the predictive ability of seven Doppler parameters: IPSV, IEDV, CEDV, common carotid peak systolic velocity (CPSV), and the ratios of IPSV/ CEDV, IEDV/CEDV, and IEDV/CEDV. To assess the agreement between Doppler and arteriography in classifying percent stenosis above or below a given criterion, sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating curve, and kappa statistics were obtained from logistic models. The single best Doppler parameter for each of two grades of stenosis (60% and 80%) was determined, and its predictive ability was compared with that of IPSV. The usefulness of IEDV or IPSV/CEDV in addition to IPSV to determine higher grade stenosis was examined. RESULTS: IPSV was the best predictor in 9 of 10 devices at 60% and in 4 devices at 80% stenosis. When another parameter was better than IPSV, the improvement was minimal. Including IEDV or IPSV/CEDV in addition to IPSV did not notably improve predictive ability. CONCLUSIONS: IPSV is the single best Doppler parameter for distinguishing severe (> 80%) from less severe carotid stenosis. Information from other Doppler parameters in addition to IPSV is unlikely to be helpful.