Key result
History of kidney stones is linked to ~20% higher risk of MACE.
Cohort (n=26,640)
Yes
Odds Ratio: 1.2 (95% CI 1.07–1.36)
Absolute Event Rate: 6.5% vs 5.6%
p-value: p=0.003
Retrospective analysis demonstrates increased cardiovascular risk in patients with kidney stones, suggesting a health concern.
Kidney stones are an increasingly common condition, and evidence suggests a link between stone formation and cardiovascular risk. This study aimed to investigate the association between kidney stones and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and stroke. This multicenter retrospective study included 6,660 patients with newly diagnosed stone disease from 2013 to 2017 (KS group) and 19,980 patients without stone disease (NKS group) in the same period. The history of kidney stones was found to be significantly associated with the risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event (aORs: 1.20, 95% CIs: 1.07-1.36, p = 0.003). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, the kidney stone formers had an increased relative risk in stroke (aHRs: 1.21, 95%CIs: 1.02-1.42, p = 0.03) and AMI (aHRs: 1.57, 95%CIs: 1.28-1.92, p < 0.001), but not HF (aHRs: 1.11, 95%CIs: 0.92-1.34, p = 0.3). In contrast, in the female subgroup, kidney stones were associated with an increased risk of HF (aHRs: 1.46, 95% CIs: 1.10-1.93, p = 0.009). The kidney stone formers had an increased risk in stroke and acute myocardial infarction, while only female patients with kidney stones had an increased risk of heart failure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Smelser et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Kidney stones (n=26,640). Kidney stones vs. No kidney stones was evaluated on Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (aOR 1.20, 95% CI 1.07-1.36, p=0.003). A history of kidney stones was significantly associated with a 20% increased odds of major adverse cardiovascular events (aOR 1.20) compared to individuals without kidney stones.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: