Background Non-optimal temperatures contribute substantially to ischemic heart disease (IHD) risk; however, comparative trends and determinants of the dual burdens associated with heat and cold exposure remain poorly understood, especially in China. This study compared the temperature-attributable burden of IHD in China with global and Socio-Demographic Index (SDI)-stratified patterns from 1990 to 2021 to identify major disparities. Methods Using data from the Global Burden of Disease 2021 study, we analyzed trends in temperature-attributable IHD trends via decomposition analysis, Joinpoint regression, and age-period-cohort modeling. Future trends through 2031 were projected using a Bayesian model. Results Globally, the age-standardized mortality rate (ASMR) attributable to non-optimal temperatures declined by 30.09%, primarily driven by reductions in the low-temperature burden. However, these improvements were largely confined to high-SDI regions, while lower-SDI regions experienced stagnant or worsening trends. In contrast, China demonstrated a 15.65% increase in overall ASMR, driven by a dual burden characterized by a marked rise in heat-related ASMR (+64.15%) and a concurrent increase in cold-related ASMR (+12.18%). Decomposition analysis identified fundamentally different driving forces between global and Chinese trends. Globally, epidemiological improvements exerted a strong protective effect (-256.56%), whereas in China, these factors contributed to an increase in per-capita risk (+169.82%). Projections to 2031 suggest these disparities are likely to persist. Conclusion China is facing a compounding IHD crisis driven by the combined impacts of both heat and cold exposure, representing a risk profile that differs fundamentally from global patterns. These findings highlight the urgent need for a paradigm shift toward tailored, dual-target public health strategies capable of simultaneously mitigating the adverse cardiovascular effects of both temperature extremes in vulnerable populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wei et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: