Heart attacks decline after smoking ban

[IdaBriggs]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060926/hl_nm/heart_smoking_dc

DALLAS (Reuters) - A Colorado city ban on smoking at workplaces and in public buildings may have sparked a steep decline in heart attacks, researchers reported on Monday.

In the 18 months after a no-smoking ordinance took effect in Pueblo in 2003, hospital admissions for heart attacks for city residents dropped 27 percent, according to the study led by Dr. Carl Bartecchi, a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Denver.

"Heart attack hospitalizations did not change significantly for residents of surrounding Pueblo County or in the comparison city of Colorado Springs, neither of which have non-smoking ordinances," said the American Heart Association, which published the study in its journal Circulation.

The association said this was further evidence of the damage wrought by secondhand smoke.

(more at link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060926/hl_nm/heart_smoking_dc)

[ForFuxakes]

1. 18 months????

Call me a cynic, but an 18 month study? Come on...heart related disease take a lot longer than 18 months to manifest itself as would the decline...

[sandnsea]

2. In Montana too

This was from several years ago when Helena had a smoking ban. They relate it to the second-hand smoke, not heart disease from smoking. I'm not even an advocate of smoking bans, but it is interesting.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9A0CE3DA1E3FF936A25753C1A9659C8B63

[progressoid]

13. Wow, and the heart-atttacks returned when the ban was recinded!

The study showed two trends. First, there was no change in heart attack rates for patients who lived outside city limits. But for city residents, the rates plummeted by 58 percent in only six months.

''We know from longer-term studies that the effects of secondhand smoke occur within minutes, and that long-term exposure to secondhand smoke is associated with a 30 percent increased risk in heart attack rates,'' says Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine who conducted the study's statistical analysis. ''But it was quite stunning to document this large an effect so quickly.''

It was also stunning to witness what happened next. The Montana State Legislature, under pressure from the Montana Tavern Association and tobacco lobbyists, rescinded the ban in December. The result: heart-attack rates bounced back up almost as quickly as they dropped. The bottom line of Helena's plummeting, then soaring, heart attack rate is painfully obvious: secondhand smoke kills. Only 30 minutes of exposure to it causes platelets in the bloodstream to become stickier. When that happens, blood clots form more easily, which can block arteries and cause heart attacks.

Dr. Richard Sargent, one of the study's authors, points out that eight hours of working in a smoky bar is equivalent to smoking a pack of cigarettes a day. In such an environment, other studies have shown, workers more than double their chances of developing cancer and asthma, and pregnant workers put themselves at risk for miscarriage and premature delivery.

[IdaBriggs]

15. Amazing, isn't it?

It makes sense when you think about it, though. I don't think the smokers are going to like this study.

[PeaceProgProsp]

3. But a person with a heart problem for whatever reason,

such as a bad diet and a lack of exercise or for genentic reasons, apparently, can have that heart attack triggered by smoking cigarettes.

So, taking out that trigger can have an immediate impact on heart attack rates.

This isn't the first place that has experienced this phenomenon.

[NorthernSpy]

5. nicotine is a strong vasoconstrictor

Sudden constriction of the blood vessels serving the heart can precipitate a heart attack in some cases.

:shrug:

Mind you, I don't know enough about this particular story to have an opinion on whether there actually was a decrease in heart attacks in the area affected by the public smoking ban, or whether the ban itself might be the reason for any such drop.

[ProfessorGAC]

14. I Question The Conclusion Too

I wouldn't think the timeframe is sufficient to create a statistically significant shift. I would bet that the +/-3 sigma confidence interval includes the value to which it dropped, meaning it is within a predictable range of variation.
The Professor

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Tell it to the reviewers

of the journal Circulation.

[hughee99]

4. What was the percentage of non-smokers

who had heart attacks before and after the ban? It may be that most of the people that were having heart attack before the ban were the smokers themselves, and that fewer of them were having heart attacks after the ban. Sure, fewer heart attacks is a good thing, and I fully support the smoking ban, I'm just not sure what this really says about second hand smoke.

[IdaBriggs]

6. It reported that overall heart attacks in the area decreased by 25%.

I don't think the Yahoo article breaks them down by category. :shrug:

[hughee99]

7. That's why I was wondering...

If a similar number of non-smokers had heart attacks before and after the ordinance, then the reduction would have been related to those who actually smoke not being able to as often, as opposed to second-hand smoke.

[Beaverhausen]

8. Butter on mine, please

:popcorn:

[onehandle]

9. Of course they did. Very predictable. nt

[Lindacooks]

10. Sounds about right.

"20 minutes after quitting, your blood pressure drops.

Carbon monoxide levels in your blood drop to normal eight hours after you quit smoking.

Your chances of a heart attack decrease just twenty-four hours after quitting.

Within three months of quitting, your lung function can increase by thirty percent."

http://www.whitelies.tv/quit.asp

[Gregorian]

11. Is anyone outraged about how pot smokers are treated?

It sounds like this is true. That's a huge number, 27%. I don't believe most things ike this.

But when I step back, I see a hundred years of fat assed tobacco tycoons. And I see harmless cannibis people, for lac of a better word, in fear for their lives. And in jail.


I'm outraged. But then I'm outraged all of the time anyways.

[IdaBriggs]

16. Sorry, but no. Pot smokers are their own particular brand of stupid,

as far as I am concerned. Republicans ruining people's lives in general sparks my outrage. Pot smokers who are breaking the law because they like getting high, as opposed to the ones who are breaking the law for "medical" reasons, really don't get a lot of my "outrage" points.

:shrug:

[Gregorian]

17. :(

I'm getting sick of this place.

I feel like a total outcast. I post stuff that seems important to me, and it gets ignored. And the little things I post in passing get comments. I lived through the drug war, and happened to enjoy smoking pot more than anything else in life. It's not just for stupid people. The hypocrisy in this country stinks to high heavens. I mean the laws. Poison is legal.

Screw it. This isn't related to the original post in any real way.

Sorry. I'm just at the end of my rope. Literally. Getting ready to move. Waiting for a nonexistent buyer. No place to move to. No friends. No family. No country. I'm really really sick. I don't want to be here any more. And that is something I can't post anywhere on this stinking forum.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Don't worry, Greg.

You're not the outcast here.

[IdaBriggs]

22. It is indeed a big tent. We have druggies, law lovers, and even

a few folks sympathetic to the suffering of the neighborhood pedophiles. Pretty much the only thing "unwelcome" here are folks in love with Junior.

:shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Faster, Ida!

"Sympathetic to the suffering of the neighborhood pedophiles."

FASTER! FASTER!

[IdaBriggs]

24. You make no sense to me. "Faster! Faster!" Is this some kind of

subtle insult that I'm missing? I'm okay with that (if you don't like what I have to say, just use the ignore button), especially as its helping to keep this thread kicked. :)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Oh, but Ida...

as I'm not the one who compared marijuana to pedophilia, I've not the one who has to be embarassed by this thread.



Now play FASTER!

[IdaBriggs]

26. Um, the reading comprehension problems you have *MIGHT* be a

cause for embarrassment for you, but again, that's up to you. I specifically spoke of three different "types" of people -- 1) Druggies, 2) Law Lovers, and 3) Pedophile Sympathizers -- all of whom have very different agendas, but still fit under the "big tent" of the party.

I'm still not sure what "play faster" means, perhaps because I am unfamiliar with the pictures you are posting, but I can live with that. You and I aren't ever going to agree on the dangers of drugs, and I'm okay with that. Frankly, I think its more of a problem for you because you seem to have this weird idea that even though you are a "rebel" everyone else has to agree with you.

Fortunately, its not my problem. :) And again, thank you for helping to keep the thread kicked! :)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. Reading comprehension's not my problem.

I know exactly what you meant.

"you seem to have this weird idea that even though you are a "rebel" everyone else has to agree with you."

Actually, Ida, I think most people around here agree with me and disagree with you. But I think you already knew that.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Faster, Ida! FASTER! FASTER!

[SnowGoose]

12. Study used hospital admission records that did not include smoking status

I just went and gave the original paper a quick look over. Since the data the authors used was hospital records, which didn't include information like smoking status or educational level, they were not able to break down the reduction in risk between smokers and non-smokers.

The authors do say this in the discussion:

"A recent analysis2 and systematic review14 found that
never-smokers had an estimated 30% greater risk of
ischemic heart disease if they lived with a smoker. This
was almost half the risk of smoking 20 cigarettes daily,
even though the exposure to tobacco smoke was only 1%
of that of a smoker. This suggests a nonlinear doseresponse
relation between SHS exposure and risk of
coronary heart disease."

Other than that, I didn't see a particular rationale for thinking the observed effect was in those exposed to second-hand smoker rather than smokers themselves.

[Robb]

21. Remember, Pueblo isn't in a glass jar

Look at the facts. Admissions decreased. Vasoconstriction is a heart-attack trigger. Smokers can't smoke there.

It seems as likely as anything that they simply went elsewhere to smoke, and anyone who's number was up for a heart attack on the next ciggy just had it elsewhere. :shrug: