Kianersi Sina, Potts Kaitlin, Wang Heming, Sofer Tamar, Noordam Raymond, Rutter Martin, Rexrode Kathryn, Redline Susan, Huang Tianyi
Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School.
Brigham and Women's Hospital.
Res Sq. 2025 Jun 3:rs.3.rs-6718332. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6718332/v1.
Individuals with an evening chronotype often experience circadian misalignment, which may disrupt health behaviors and circadian regulation of cardiometabolic functions such as blood pressure. However, the associations of chronotype with modifiable cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors and incident CVD are not fully understood.
We conducted a prospective study in 322,777 UK Biobank participants aged 39-74 years who were free of known CVD (2006-2010). Chronotype was self-reported using a single representative question from the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire. The Life's Essential 8 (LE8) score was calculated based on 8 modifiable CVD risk factors, and ranged from 0 to 100 with higher scores indicating better cardiovascular health. Incident CVD was defined as first myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke leading to hospitalization or death, identified via validated algorithms. Cox proportional hazards models estimated the association between chronotype and CVD risk, adjusted for socio-demographics, shift work, and family history of CVD. Under the causal mediation framework, we evaluated the role of LE8 in the association between chronotype and CVD risk by decomposing the total effect into natural direct effect (i.e., independent of LE8) and natural indirect effect (i.e., mediated by LE8; NIE).
Participants (mean age: 57) with a "definite evening" chronotype (8% of the total sample) were 79% more likely to have an overall poor LE8 score (<50 points) compared to "intermediate" type (prevalence ratio 95% CI: 1.72 - 1.85). Over a median of 13.2 years of follow-up, there were 17,584 incident CVD events (11,091 MI; 7,214 stroke). The hazard ratio (HR) for total CVD was 1.03 (0.99 - 1.07) for the "definite morning" and 1.16 (1.10 - 1.22) for "definite evening" compared with "intermediate" chronotype (P-trend: 0.10). LE8 explained 74% of the association between evening chronotype and CVD (NIE comparing "definite evening" to "intermediate: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.13). Findings were similar when MI and stroke were examined individually.
Compared to intermediate chronotype, evening chronotype was associated with modestly higher CVD risk, which was mainly explained by overall poorer cardiovascular health. These results suggest that individuals with evening chronotype may particularly benefit from interventions targeting CVD risk factors.
具有晚睡型生物钟的个体常经历昼夜节律失调,这可能会扰乱健康行为以及诸如血压等心脏代谢功能的昼夜调节。然而,生物钟类型与可改变的心血管疾病(CVD)风险因素及CVD发病之间的关联尚未完全明确。
我们对英国生物银行中322,777名年龄在39 - 74岁且无已知CVD的参与者进行了一项前瞻性研究(2006 - 2010年)。生物钟类型通过晨型 - 夜型问卷中的一个代表性问题进行自我报告。基于8个可改变的CVD风险因素计算生命基本8要素(LE8)评分,范围为0至100分,分数越高表明心血管健康状况越好。新发CVD定义为首次因心肌梗死(MI)或中风导致住院或死亡,通过经过验证的算法进行识别。Cox比例风险模型估计生物钟类型与CVD风险之间的关联,并对社会人口统计学、轮班工作和CVD家族史进行了调整。在因果中介框架下,我们通过将总效应分解为自然直接效应(即独立于LE8)和自然间接效应(即由LE8介导;NIE)来评估LE8在生物钟类型与CVD风险关联中的作用。
与“中间型”相比,“绝对晚睡型”生物钟的参与者(平均年龄:57岁)(占总样本的8%)总体LE8评分较差(<50分)的可能性高79%(患病率比95%CI:1.72 - 1.85)。在中位随访13.2年期间,有17,584例新发CVD事件(11,091例MI;7,214例中风)。与“中间型”生物钟类型相比,“绝对晨型”的总CVD风险比(HR)为1.03(0.99 - 1.07),“绝对晚睡型”为1.16(1.10 - 1.22)(P趋势:0.10)。LE8解释了晚睡型生物钟与CVD之间关联的74%(“绝对晚睡型”与“中间型”相比的NIE:1.11;95%CI:1.09,1.13)。单独检查MI和中风时结果相似。
与中间型生物钟类型相比,晚睡型生物钟与略高的CVD风险相关,这主要由总体较差的心血管健康状况所解释。这些结果表明,晚睡型生物钟的个体可能特别受益于针对CVD风险因素的干预措施。