Why the study?
Does effort-reward imbalance increase the risk of coronary atherosclerosis in patients undergoing coronary angiography?
Does effort-reward imbalance increase the risk of coronary atherosclerosis in patients undergoing coronary angiography?
High job stress, as measured by effort-reward imbalance, is significantly associated with the presence and severity of angiographic coronary atherosclerosis in Chinese workers.
Hypothesis-generating for effort-reward imbalance in CHD; prospective studies needed before clinical adoption.
BACKGROUND: Previous studies of job strain and coronary heart disease (CHD) have produced mixed findings. We aimed to examine the association between job stress evaluated by the effort-reward imbalance (ERI) model and coronary atherosclerosis assessed by coronary angiography in a Chinese sample. METHODS: Three-hundred twenty participants accepting coronary angiography for the first time were enrolled in series. Job stressors were evaluated by the ERI model. The presence and severity of CHD were assessed by measuring the coronary artery stenosis (the presence of >50% luminal stenosis in one or more major coronary arteries). The association between job stressors and CHD was examined by multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Compared with the low-level group, high-level effort, overcommitment, and ERI increased CHD risk with odds ratio (OR) 2.5 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2-5.0), 2.5 (95% CI: 1.2-5.0), 2.4 (95% CI: 1.2-4.9), respectively, after adjustment for confounders. They were also significantly positively correlated with the complexity of coronary artery lesions, respectively. Dose-response relationships were observed. CONCLUSIONS: ERI was associated with coronary artery lesions in a sample of Chinese workers. Longitudinal research and interventional designs are needed to confirm the mechanism and to provide evidence for the prevention of CHD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xu et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: