Unmarried patients have an increased rate of adverse cardiovascular events compared to their married counterparts.
Does unmarried status increase the risk of adverse cardiovascular events in patients with or at risk for cardiovascular disease?
Unmarried status and poor marital quality are non-traditional psychosocial risk factors associated with increased adverse cardiovascular events.
The national burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) continues to impose significant risk of morbidity, mortality and increased costs. While traditional risk factors have been well-established, the evolving role of non-traditional risk factors, including socioeconomic and psychosocial factors, is increasingly being recognized. Several studies have acknowledged an association between marital status and the presence of CVD and its associated adverse outcomes. Across multiple U.S. and international cohorts, patients who are unmarried, including those who are divorced, separated, widowed, or never married, have an increased rate of adverse cardiovascular events when compared to their married counterparts. Some studies suggest that marriage may have a more protective role for men compared to women. Furthermore, dissatisfaction in a marriage and marriage quality have significant impact on cardiovascular risk. Psychosocial and socioeconomic factors, as well as other acute stressors, may contribute to the association between marital status and CVD outcomes, but the underlying mechanisms are not completely clear. Further investigation is required to identify potential targets for intervention and to determine whether more aggressive targeting of standard anti-atherosclerotic therapies can favorably impact CVD risk in unmarried patients.
Dhindsa et al. (Sat,) conducted a review in Cardiovascular disease. Unmarried status vs. Married status was evaluated on Adverse cardiovascular events. Unmarried patients have an increased rate of adverse cardiovascular events compared to their married counterparts.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: