Trial reportJournal of the American Heart Association2021
Arrhythmia Risk During the 2016 US Presidential Election: The Cost of Stressful Politics.
Trial report in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Arrhythmia Risk During the 2016 US Presidential Election: The Cost of Stressful Politics.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Trial
- Mental Health Across the Atrial Fibrillation Continuum: Mechanisms, Outcomes, and Clinical Implications.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Variability in Pacemaker Battery Estimates and Performance.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2026Article
- Effects of Extreme Humidity and Heat on Ventricular Arrhythmia Risk in Patients With Cardiac Devices.JACC. Advances · 2025Article
- Political Polarization and Wellbeing: Investigating Potential Intrapersonal Harm From Affective Polarization.International review of social psychology · 2025Article
- The health costs of losing political representation: Evidence from U.S. Presidential Elections.PloS one · 2025Article
- County-level political group density, partisan polarization, and individual-level mortality among adults in the United States: A lagged multilevel study.SSM - population health · 2024Article
- Conspiracy beliefs and perceptual inference in times of political uncertainty.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- State-level economic uncertainty and cardiovascular disease deaths: evidence from the United States.European journal of epidemiology · 2023Article
- Resentment Is Like Drinking Poison? The Heterogeneous Health Effects of Affective Polarization.Journal of health and social behavior · 2022Article
- Association of the 2020 US Presidential Election With Hospitalizations for Acute Cardiovascular Conditions.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Beta-blockers in cardiac arrhythmias-Clinical pharmacologist's point of view.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background Anger and extreme stress can trigger potentially fatal cardiovascular events in susceptible people. Political elections, such as the 2016 US presidential election, are significant stressors. Whether they can trigger cardiac arrhythmias is unknown. Methods and Results In this retrospective case-crossover study, we linked cardiac device data, electronic health records, and historic voter registration records from 2436 patients with implanted cardiac devices. The incidence of arrhythmias during the election was compared with a control period with Poisson regression. We also tested for effect modification by demographics, comorbidities, political affiliation, and whether an individual's political affiliation was concordant with county-level election results. Overall, 2592 arrhythmic events occurred in 655 patients during the hazard period compared with 1533 events in 472 patients during the control period. There was a significant increase in the incidence of composite outcomes for any arrhythmia (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.77 [95% CI, 1.42-2.21]), supraventricular arrhythmia (IRR, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.36-2.43]), and ventricular arrhythmia (IRR, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.22-2.10]) during the election relative to the control period. There was also an increase in specific types of arrhythmia, including atrial fibrillation (IRR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.06-2.11]), supraventricular tachycardia (IRR, 3.7 [95% CI, 2.2-6.2]), nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (IRR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.3-2.2]), and daily atrial fibrillation burden (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.