Cannabis use and myocardial infarction in young adults: a cross-sectional study
1–10 of 161 posts
Re: Cannabis use and myocardial infarction in young adults: a cross-sectional study
#2A history of MI was more frequent among recent cannabis users (n = 61 of 4610, 1.3%) relative to nonusers (n = 240 of 28 563 [0.8%], adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.07, 95% CI 1.12–3.82).
One point three percent. Someone tell Willy Nelson before its too late.
Re: Cannabis use and myocardial infarction in young adults: a cross-sectional study
#3I appreciate the study calls out that most cannabis is smoked, and it may be general smoke inhalation driving these results rather than an inherent property of cannabis
Re: Cannabis use and myocardial infarction in young adults: a cross-sectional study
#4When smoking at least 4 times a month.
Re: Cannabis use and myocardial infarction in young adults: a cross-sectional study
#5I'll gladly take this risk considering cannabis preserves my sanity and keeps me away from the trough of sorrow.
Re: Cannabis use and myocardial infarction in young adults: a cross-sectional study
#6A history of MI was more frequent among recent cannabis users (n = 61 of 4610, 1.3%) relative to nonusers (n = 240 of 28 563 [0.8%], adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.07, 95% CI 1.12–3.82). One point three percent. Someone tell Willy Nelson before its too late.
[deleted]
Re: Cannabis use and myocardial infarction in young adults: a cross-sectional study
#7This strikes me as a bit weak, and an answer looking for a question.
> the current evidence is limited to case–control studies that are prone to bias and studies relying solely on administrative data.9–14 It is also limited in its definition of exposure, as these studies assess patients with heavy cannabis use (cannabis abuse or cannabis use disorder).9–14 Very few studies have assessed the prevalence of recent cannabis use (any use within past 30 days) and its association with MI.7,9,15 Prevalence estimates of the primary method of cannabis consumption and the frequency of cannabis use are incompletely characterized, and the potential impact of these factors on the risk of MI remains undefined.
Is it just me, or does that sound like they are admitting that there were no real controls, except they tried to select for people who had an "abusive" (a level of use not defined in the abstract) relationship with Cannabis.
The conclusions they drew sound a bit heavy-handed for such a vague survey of corellations, or is that just me?
Re: Cannabis use and myocardial infarction in young adults: a cross-sectional study
#8A history of MI was more frequent among recent cannabis users (n = 61 of 4610, 1.3%) relative to nonusers (n = 240 of 28 563 [0.8%], adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.07, 95% CI 1.12–3.82). One point three percent. Someone tell Willy Nelson before its too late.
It's less than 1.3%; it's a +0.5% delta (+0.3-3% for the confidence interval).
Re: Cannabis use and myocardial infarction in young adults: a cross-sectional study
#9I appreciate the study calls out that most cannabis is smoked, and it may be general smoke inhalation driving these results rather than an inherent property of cannabis
I too wonder if it is due to the way it was consumed primarily (smoking).
There is a bit about the impact of cannabinoids on the cardiovascular system however.
> The impact of exogenous cannabinoids on the cardiovascular system has been well described.7,33 After acute exposure, cannabis induces dose-dependent tachycardia and, in some cases, decreased ventricular contractility, palpitations, atrial fibrillation and arrhythmia.
Table 2 differentiates the form of consumption but I couldn't find them controlling for it. Did I miss that somehow?
Re: Cannabis use and myocardial infarction in young adults: a cross-sectional study
#10The section “Study design and participants“ is rather questionable based on dependence upon the BRFSS survey. Most of their citations about this survey attempt to adjust for and explain how they have accounted for the fact that a random telephone survey is extremely unreliable in this age, and several of their citations do not even link to anything functional.