Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in context with the paradigm―month of birth and longevity

Abstract

Time and environmental physical activity are involved in timing of many medical events. In a recent study published by the National Academy of Science, USA it was shown that month of birth is related to longevity. The aim of this study was to check the month of birth distribution in a great group of AMI patients of both gender, one of the great killers in the developed countries, to check the mentioned paradigm of month of birth and longevity. Methods & Patients: Patients admitted to Cardiology Departments of a tertiary University Hospital in Kaunas, Lithuania with AMI at years 1990-2010 (n-22047) were studied. Month of birth of these patients, total and both gender were checked. Monthly, quarterly and trimester comparison were done. Statistical differences established using t-Student test and distribution by percents of the yearly months of birth. Results: It was a significant difference in the month of birth of the studied AMI population. January and first quarter and trimester born patients were more often in the studied AMI patients group. The higher morbidity by Cardiovascular diseases can be a significant ingredient in the structure of population longevity. Possible mechanisms explaining our findings are discussed. Conclusion: In the AMI population people born in January, first quarter or trimester of the year are dominating in both gender groups. The results of this study can be an additional confirmation of the paradigm about links between month of birth and longevity.

Time of Conception and Birth-Relation of “Big Killers” Patients and Longevity

“…[4] [5]. The aim of this study was to: 1) synthesize data related to birth month of patients with such "big killer" diagnoses like Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) [6] [7], Rapid and Sudden Cardiac Death (RCD, SCD) [8], and Oncologic Malignancies [9], including 71,965 deaths, and their presumed conception month for each group of pathology and summarized both for all groups of patients, studied in the mentioned studies; 2) compare with analogic data of the literature for a group of centenarians (100 -112 years old) in the USA and; 3) explore the existing differences [10].…”