Vitamin D Associated With A Higher Risk Of Atrial Fibrillation

[HuckleB]

http://getbetterhealth.com/vitamin-d-associated-with-a-higher-risk-of-atrial-fibrillation/2011.12.05

"Too much vitamin D can lead to 2.5 times the risk of atrial fibrillation, researchers found.

To determine if there is a correlation between too much vitamin D and increased heart risk, researchers examined blood tests from 132,000 patients in the Intermountain Healthcare Center database. Results were presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions in November, and appeared at the Intermountain website.

Patients did not have any known history of atrial fibrillation, and all had previously received a vitamin D assessment as part of their routine care. Patients were then placed into categories to compare levels of vitamin D: low (less than 20 ng/dL), low/normal (21-40 ng/dL), normal (41-80 ng/dL), high/normal (81-100 ng/dL), and excess (more than 100 ng/dL).

Patients with low, low-normal, normal and high-normal levels of vitamin D had no increased risk of atrial fibrillation. However, atrial fibrillation risk was 2.5 times greater in patients with excess levels of vitamin D compared to those with normal levels.

..."

-------------------


FYI.

:hi:

[snagglepuss]

1. Sensationalistic. Here's the response of the Vitamin D Council.

Thoughts on atrial fibrillation study

snip


The investigators found in an observational study of 132,000 subjects at Intermountain Medical Center that patients with 25(OH)D serum levels greater than 100 ng/ml were at a 2.5 times greater risk of developing atrial fibrillation. They found no increased risk of developing atrial fibrillation in levels of 0-20 ng/ml, 21-40 ng/ml, 61-80 ng/ml or 81-100 ng/ml. They did find an increased risk of hypertension, heart failure, diabetes, and renal failure for those who were deficient (0-20 ng/ml).


First off, I would like to remind everyone that levels above 100 ng/ml are hard to achieve. This is well outside levels recommend by the Endocrine Society (40-60 ng/ml), Professor Heaney (48-60 ng/ml) and the Vitamin D Council (50-80 ng/ml). Also keep in mind that we know from many studies that the higher your blood levels, the more difficult it is to raise your blood levels. In other words, 1,000 IU/day increase at a baseline 25(OH)D level of 10 ng/ml will take you much further than a 1,000 IU/day increase at a baseline level of 60 ng/ml.

A 25(OH)D level of 100 ng/ml is usually achieved with intake of 10,000 IU/day or more, coupled with consistent sun exposure. As many people with absorption issues know, even then, there is still a possibility that you do not achieve vitamin D blood serum levels greater than 100 ng/ml. This is why the Vitamin D Council recommends that anyone dosing at or higher than 10,000 IU/day get their 25(OH)D tested on a regular basis to ensure they are achieving optimal levels. Regardless of this study, we feel it is important to follow the recommendations of experts, and maintain levels between 40-80 ng/ml (either following the Endocrine Society or Vitamin D Council guidelines).


http://blog.vitamindcouncil.org/2011/11/18/thoughts-on-atrial-fibrillation-study/

[laconicsax]

2. Sounds like a tobacco industry response to a study on risks associated with smoking.

[saras]

4. getbetterhealth.com is its own best critic...

From a few articles linked on the above linked page...

"I have discussed previously the work of John Ioannidis that indicates that most published research is wrong."

"But Groopman and Hartzband go farther in challenging two notions that have strong advocates among current U.S. health reformers: 1) adherence to evidence-based guidelines is a panacea for improving care outcomes"

One study pretty much NEVER determines ANYTHING of importance. That's just the way it is.

[HuckleB]

6. One study never determines everything, but this is not a small study.

Here's the clarification in regard to the issue of "most published research is wrong."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x110030

Unlike much of what is posted in the health forum, this is not a small, preliminary study. It is not definitive, as no single study is definitive. Still, until I see you pointing out these issues in regard to others who post small, preliminary studies as if they are definitive, I'm not going to take you very seriously.

[Speck Tater]

3. 1.) Sensationalism sells copy, and 2.) Nobody ever checks out the facts for themselves.

Hence, in our intellectually undernourished country people hop from one fad to the next based on the most recent sensationalistic headline.

[HuckleB]

7. Interestingly, you have some validity here.

The thing about sensationalism in science reporting is that the press would have reported the same results, if that was the outcome, with the same headlines even if the N was 10. That's what is done very frequently. The N in this study is 132,000. Thus, I'm not seeing the supposed sensationalism.

[HuckleB]

5. It's a single study, yes.

I should have acknowledged that. I usually do, and I'm about the only one who does on the health forum.

On the other hand, I'm not going to put any credence into a response from "the vitamin D council."

This study is actually quite large, which means it's more likely to be valid than the majority of studies which are hindered by a small N.

[Vinca]

8. All I know is 2000 mg. a day is all that keeps me and winter depression apart.

The benefit - in my experience - outweighs the risk.

[trotsky]

9. When our body makes vitamin D naturally,

it will only make so much of it. Seems logical that if there is a natural mechanism to prevent too much of the stuff in our system, there could be harm that results from excessive amounts.

Thanks for posting.

[Celebration]

10. one would hope that our MDs would

check blood levels of Vitamin D on everyone. They are much more likely to find deficient levels, though.