Resting heart rate predicts incident myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, ischaemic stroke and death in the general population: the Tromsø Study
Abstract
Background: Elevated resting heart rate (RHR) increases risk of death overall, but a comprehensive picture of the associations between RHR, cardiovascular morbidity and mortality events has not yet been presented. We aimed to investigate the effect of RHR on the risk of 5 cardiovascular events: incident myocardial infarction (MI), incident atrial fibrillation (AF), incident ischaemic stroke, total death and cardiovascular death in a general population from Norway. Methods: We followed 24 489 men and women from the Tromsø Study 1994–1995, a population-based cohort study, for 18 years, and analysed the association between RHR and the investigated cardiovascular events. Sex-specific Cox regression with time-dependent covariates was applied with the best-fitting fractional polynomials of RHR. Results: Among men, an independent positive relationship was observed for MI and AF (adjusted HR for AF per 20 bpm increase=1.14; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.27). In women, the corresponding HR for MI was 1.23 (1.09 to 1.40). A J-shaped association was observed for ischaemic stroke in women when compared with a RHR of 70 bpm (HR for 50 bpm=1.31; 0.90 to 1.90; HR for 100 bpm=1.32; 1.04 to 1.69). Total and cardiovascular death showed a strong positive association with RHR in men. In women, the pattern for total death was similar. Conclusions: RHR is an independent risk factor for several cardiovascular events. A novel finding is the positive association between RHR and AF in men and the sex difference in association with ischaemic stroke.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The percentage of heart rates above 90-100 bpm in population studies ranges from 2.1 to 4.6%.
“The percentage of heart rates above 90–100 bpm in population studies ranges from 2.1 to 4.6%.11,13–15”
From Sinus Tachycardia: a Multidisciplinary Expert Focused Review (2022) · cites this paper as [15]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 23 · Cited by 34
- Authors
- Sharashova, E., Wilsgaard, T., Mathiesen, E. B., Løchen, M.-L., Njølstad, I., & Brenn, T.
- Affiliations
- UiT The Arctic University of Norway (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Sharashova, Ekaterina
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2016-03-07
- Volume
- 70
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 902-909
- ISSN
- 0141-7681 (ISSN-L)
- 0143-005X
- 1470-2738
- OpenAlex
- W2299686178
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 4.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart rate and cardiovascular health
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
- Keywords
- resting heart rate, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, ischemic stroke, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular risk factors, sex differences, J-shaped association, Tromsø Study
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Atrial Fibrillation, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Heart Rate, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Myocardial Infarction, Norway, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Stroke
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review