ArticleEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2025
Baseline and 10-year change in the number of ideal cardiovascular health metrics and sudden cardiac death in the community.
Article in Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global and regional burden of cardiovascular diseases due to low physical activity from 1990 to 2021 and projections to 2045: a joinpoint regression and age-period-cohort analysis based on GBD 2021.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Protecting the Heart in Motion: The Role of Physical Activity and Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Preventing Sudden Cardiac Death.Clinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsAdherence to an ideal cardiovascular health (CVH) might contribute to lower the burden of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in the community. We aimed to examine the association between the number of ideal CVH metrics at baseline and of its change over 10 years with the risk of SCD. METHODS AND
resultsThe Copenhagen City Heart Study is a community-based prospective cohort study. The number of ideal CVH metrics (range 0-6; non-smoking and ideal level of body mass index, physical activity, untreated glucose, untreated systolic blood pressure, and untreated total cholesterol levels) at baseline in 1991-94 and its 10-year change thereof between 1981-83 and 1991-94 were evaluated. Definite SCD was defined as a death occurring within 1 h (eye-witnessed case) or within 24 h (non-eye-witnessed) of symptoms onset, with the presence of confirmed ventricular tachycardia and the exclusion of non-cardiac cause at autopsy. Fine and Gray sub-distribution HRs (sHRs) were calculated to account for competing risk. The study population includes 8837 participants (57% women; mean age 57 years, ±15 years) in 1991-94. After a median follow-up of 22.6 years from 1 January 1993 up to 31 December 2016, 56 definite SCD occurred. The risk of definite SCD decreased gradually with the number of ideal metrics in 1991-94 [sHR = 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44-0.75 per additional ideal metric] and with the change (i.e. improvement) in the number of ideal metrics between 1981-83 and 1991-94 (sHR = 0.68; 0.50-0.93 per change in the number of ideal metrics). Effect size was lower for coronary death, all-cause mortality, and coronary heart disease events.
conclusionAdherence to a higher number of ideal cardiovascular health was related to a substantial lower risk of definite SCD.
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.