13 ms·
Cannabis use and myocardial infarction in young adults: a cross-sectional study
- jdhn 5y agoHow does this compare to the myocardial infarction risk that occurs in the same population due to cigarette smoking?
- modshatereality 5y ago* smokes a pack of cigarettes while chugging a pot of coffee * I don't take any medications doc, it must have been the cannabis!
- tootahe45 5y agoPeople who make poor health decisions also have poor diet and exercise habits. Shocking and has never been proven before.
- zerobits 5y agoThat is not what the study showed. They controlled for health and exercise. In fact, the study they cited which also showed an increase in stroke risk actually showed cannabis users exercised more. [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?author=T+Parekh&author=S+Pemmasani&author=R+Desai&title=Marijuana+use+among+young+adults+%2818–44+years+of+age%29+and+risk+of+stroke%3A+a+behavioral+risk+factor+surveillance+system+survey+analysis&publication_year=2020&journal=Stroke&volume=51&pages=308-10 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?author=T+Parekh&au...
- zerobits 5y agoIt’s strange that all of the comments are looking for ways to dismiss this result (and this seems to happen generally with negative cannabis findings online). Is it not entirely possible a drug and method of consumption which stresses the cardiovascular system increases odds of an adverse cardiovascular event?
- craftinator 5y agoI think that many of the commenters are pointing out that this study is poorly done in some key areas, which make any kind of conclusions based on it of little value.
- zerobits 5y agoWe’re not going to get large scale randomized controlled trials for marijuana use any time soon. We can definitely debate the methods.. but the findings from this growing body of evidence should probably be the ‘default’ stance, until we see more causal or controlled correlational evidence pointing the other way.
- whydoibother 5y agoDefault stance is should be that there are no negative effects. You’re basically saying the science is bad yet we should still make conclusions based on it. Which only means those conclusions will also be bad.
- SubiculumCode 5y agoEvery HN science article is commenters dismissing the results of the study.
- pajamanaut 5y agoI would think that people who disagree with an article would have more to say.
- JasonFruit 5y agoPeople like cannabis. Naturally they minimize any suggestion that it's not all good. I do the same with Lisp, smoked meats, and predestination. I see no mystery here.
- oceanplexian 5y ago
- ajay-b 5y agoA history of MI was more frequent among recent cannabis users (n = 61 of 4610, 1.3%) relative to nonusers (n = 240 of 28 563 [0.8%], adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.07, 95% CI 1.12–3.82). One point three percent. Someone tell Willy Nelson before its too late.
- arpinum 5y agoI appreciate the study calls out that most cannabis is smoked, and it may be general smoke inhalation driving these results rather than an inherent property of cannabis
- LegitShady 5y agoIt doesn't say that at all. >The effect estimates for history of MI were similar across methods of consumption, including among people using other forms of cannabis, including edibles, as a primary method of consumption. This finding is consistent with a case study reporting an acute MI triggered after consumption of a lollipop containing a large dose of Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.36 The Canadian government recently legalized cannabis edibles;2 however, the risks associated with edibles are poorly understood and are of concern to Canadian physicians.37 Edibles are often perceived as a safer alternative for cannabis consumption, but recent evidence suggests that edible cannabis is attributed to a larger proportion of cannabis-related emergency department visits for cardiovascular symptoms compared with inhaled cannabis
- oxymoran 5y ago“Although a similarly elevated odds of history of MI was observed across methods of recent cannabis consumption, only smoking as a primary method achieved statistical significance.“
- this_user 5y agoThat is honestly a pretty confusing sentence in need of clarification. My read would be that statistical significance was not achieved due to the small sample size of users who are primarily using other methods of consumption than smoking.
- galaxyLogic 5y agoIf there isn't statistical significance there isn't statistical significance. It does not matter what caused the lack of it. Without statistical significance there is "no evidence".
- CoolGuySteve 5y agoWhen smoking at least 4 times a month.
- dylan604 5y agoi mean, if you're not even going to try. does that even qualify as smoking? users smoke 4 times before noon.
- bowsersghost 5y agoI'll gladly take this risk considering cannabis preserves my sanity and keeps me away from the trough of sorrow.
- eurasiantiger 5y agoEveryone with PTSD nods in agreement.
- halfmatthalfcat 5y agoSounds like therapy would be very useful then. If you’re having to self-medicate to maintain sanity, the substances are only a crutch. Speaking from personal experience.
- benatkin 5y agoSweeping generalizations based on personal experience aren't much better than sweeping generalizations that aren't based on personal experience.
- halfmatthalfcat 5y agoI don't think it's a stretch or generalization to mention mental health services to people who may be struggling with mental health issues.
- benatkin 5y agoThe sweeping generalization I was referring to is "the substances are only a crutch". Your comment also suggests that you assume the author of the comment you replied to isn't pursuing therapy. People can do both at the same time. A lot of things can be a crutch, but cannabis provides meaningful relief for many.
- halfmatthalfcat 5y agoI never argued it doesn't provide relief, what I'm arguing is that relief is somewhat of an illusion if you're suffering from persistent mental health issues, hence a crutch.
- 52-6F-62 5y agoThis strikes me as a bit weak, and an answer looking for a question. > the current evidence is limited to case–control studies that are prone to bias and studies relying solely on administrative data.9–14 It is also limited in its definition of exposure, as these studies assess patients with heavy cannabis use (cannabis abuse or cannabis use disorder).9–14 Very few studies have assessed the prevalence of recent cannabis use (any use within past 30 days) and its association with MI.7,9,15 Prevalence estimates of the primary method of cannabis consumption and the frequency of cannabis use are incompletely characterized, and the potential impact of these factors on the risk of MI remains undefined. Is it just me, or does that sound like they are admitting that there were no real controls, except they tried to select for people who had an "abusive" (a level of use not defined in the abstract) relationship with Cannabis. The conclusions they drew sound a bit heavy-handed for such a vague survey of corellations, or is that just me?
- hirundo 5y agoThere is no control because there was no experiment. There is no independent variable that was controlled. This is epidemiology, not a trial. At best it can show a link, not causation.
- 52-6F-62 5y agoThere was an independent variable that was controlled as stated in the abstract and I pointed out already: they selected for people that had "abusive" relationships with cannabis according to whatever standard they chose. They firmly state the presence of a link between heart attacks and cannabis consumption without outlining whether the selected group had any other existing health or genetic issues. Maybe the data didn't contain that information—in which case the data sounds useless for this kind of study. How can you draw a link (read: connection) when there is no causal proof? You can draw a correlation and state that further investigation is needed to draw a link, but they state there is a link. That's why I'm calling it weak.
- hirundo 5y agoFor link, read correlation, not connection. They can only show evidence of correlation with this design, not connection. I think you're misunderstanding the nature of an independent variable. To be independent it has to be controlled by the experimenter. If an abusive relationship with cannabis was an independent variable, subjects would have to be assigned an abusive relationship with cannabis, which is obviously not practical. There must be such an intervention. Since they are only selected from the existing population, with no independent intervention, this is a survey, not an experiment. It is the difference between observational and experimental science, and this study is the former.
- code_duck 5y agoThe section “Study design and participants“ is rather questionable based on dependence upon the BRFSS survey. Most of their citations about this survey attempt to adjust for and explain how they have accounted for the fact that a random telephone survey is extremely unreliable in this age, and several of their citations do not even link to anything functional.
- the-dude 5y agoAs a stoner from 16y onwards, I am thrilled to find out I actually survived this risk.
- derekdahmer 5y agoAccording to this study your odds went up from 0.8% to 1.3% so it’s hardly dodging a bullet.
- the-dude 5y agoI am still thrilled.
- everdrive 5y agoI'm not a doctor, so please note that this is a genuine question, and not a rhetorical speculation: That said, smoking has always made my heart race. I'd be curious to know if this is common for people, and if it is common, then whether or not this could be a contributing factor. >edit, sorry, that should have said "I'm not a doctor."
- crazy_horse 5y agoIt can lead to anxiety and panic attacks due to the high levels of THC relative to the past.
- datavirtue 5y agoAgreed. I'm always on the lookout for what are now low percentage strains. Perhaps I'm an odd ball lightweight but the current trend of ingesting as much THC as an possible in as little smoke as possible is not something I look forward to. 20+% come the fuck on...I'm not trying to make hash out of it.
- doublerabbit 5y agoIt's the same with Wine, once upon a time a bottle was only 9-10% in alcohol volume and now an average bottle in the super market is up in the 13-14% range.
- agentwiggles 5y agoI've been complaining about this for years. Instead of optimizing for a pleasant sensation, growers have been trying to push THC as high as possible (while also pushing CBD to near non-existent levels). This 20%+ THC .5% CBD stuff tends to make me anxious and unhappy to the point that I've almost completely quit smoking. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing overall. But still, I'd love to see some more moderate options take root in the marketplace. If my state ever legalizes, I think it might be fun to try my hand at breeding a personal strain with better ratios!
- QuantumYeti 5y ago
- dsizzle 5y agoThe more shocking takeaway for me is that ~1% of people under 45 have had a heart attack (cannabis use is a rounding error)! That's higher than I would have guessed.
- goldenkey 5y agoMore than 1% are fat slobs. So is it really surprising? The obesity prevalence was 40.0% among adults aged 20 to 39 years, 44.8% among adults aged 40 to 59 years, and 42.8% among adults aged 60 and older. (2021) https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
- dsizzle 5y agoI'm not sure the effect of obesity is that massive. Look at the curves in Fig 2 here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6503652/bin/VHRM-15-89-g0002.jpg https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6503652/bin/VHR... From the text of that paper it looks like being obese ~doubles your risk at a given age, and it looks like age is the highest risk. It looks like the cumulative risk of being obese AND 80 puts your risk at about ~12% for having a heart attack. Hard to tell from that graph if the 45 year old data is consistent with the study in this paper or not.
- goldenkey 5y agoI would gander it is because the underlying reason is cardiovascular damage, not fat. But the two have a strong correlation. Even the tests for stenosis of arteries aren't very reliable or exact. If we had good stats for vascular obstruction and looked at that instead, it'd probably be even more depressing than the obesity stats, knowing the diet most people eat..
- eplanit 5y agoI had my MI at age 43. Other than _smoking_ weed (via a bong) daily I was in good shape with regular exercise, etc. (5+ miles hiking in hills every day with my dog, at the bare minimum). After 3 stents I became much more conscientious about all my intakes and activities. I reduced my weed consumption, but began to notice that I would get angina pain about 20 minutes after smoking. Not after hiking or biking, or any physical activity, but almost always after smoking. At first I wondered if it was coincidence, so I reduced smoking further. But that served to further confirm it -- I would get angina pain only after smoking, and practically every time. So bye-bye to the bong and smoking. I quit altogether, made tinctures (which I grew to like), and edibles for a while, but then tried a vaporizor (this was 2006). In hindsight, the idea of smoking is now unthinkable to me. I have felt no cardiac symptoms at all since vaping instead. YMMV.
- haswell 5y agoDid you switch to vaping concentrates or dry herb? I recently switched to a dry herb vape because concentrates were concerning me for other reasons.
- eplanit 5y agoJust dried herb/flower. Yeah, concentrates would be hard for me to trust, too.
- gogobandang 5y agoJust quit dude. (dang doesn't want you to see this)
- libraryatnight 5y agoI just bought a nice new bong but I think I need to swap to vape. What vape did you try? I owned a volcano but found the bag to be cumbersome for semi-regular use.
- arsome 5y ago
- bigbob2 5y ago> Competing interests: Karim Ladha and Hance Clarke are principal investigators of an observational medical cannabis study funded by Shoppers Drug Mart.
- animanoir 5y agoSo vaping is safer?
- derekdahmer 5y agoThe effects when vaping were not statistically significant in this study so we can’t say one way or another (according to this study).
- hihihihi1234 5y agoFor those like me who had to look it up, "myocardial infarction" is a fancy way of saying "heart attack"
- hereme888 5y agoNow that organically grown, super high quality marijuana gummies and candies are legally available in many places, why do people still smoke vs. eat it? It seems so much safer and the precise dose predictable.
- arsome 5y agoThe effects are quite different for most people due to the lack of first-pass metabolism with inhalation which converts digested THC to a different form. Dry herb vaporizers might be a better suggestion. A friend of mine who's a daily smoker finds the edible effects completely unpredictable and challenging to dose and enjoy compared to smoking or vaping.
- hereme888 5y agoOh I see. Interesting. Thanks.
- ksaj 5y agoNot to derail what you've said, you can get capsules that have a very precise dosage. Here is an example: https://herb.co/products/capsules/aurora-indica-liquid-gels/ https://herb.co/products/capsules/aurora-indica-liquid-gels/
- ipaddr 5y agoIf there are no controls around the strain / type of cannabis I'm not entirely sure what we are testing and concluding.
- gogobandang 5y agoAnnnd it's locked.