Hormonal Contraception tied to Cardiovascular Risk in Women, finds research

Published On 2025-02-16 15:45 GMT   |   Update On 2025-02-16 15:45 GMT

A study analyzing Denmark's nationwide records found that women using hormonal contraception had a higher likelihood of ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction, though the overall risk remained low. The data indicated a dose-related association between progestin-only products and arterial thrombotic risk. However, progestin-only intrauterine devices did not show the same cardiovascular side effects. A study was done to evaluate the association between contemporary hormonal contraceptive use and the risk of incident ischaemic stroke and myocardial infarction. All women aged 15-49 years residing in Denmark between 1996 and 2021, with no history of arterial or venous thrombosis, antipsychotics use, cancer, thrombophilia, liver disease, kidney disease, polycystic ovary syndrome, endometriosis, infertility treatment, hormone therapy use, oophorectomy, and hysterectomy. Results: Among 2 025 691 women followed up for 22 209 697 person years, 4730 ischaemic strokes and 2072 myocardial infarctions occurred. Standardised ischaemic stroke rate per 100 000 person years were 18 (95% confidence interval 18 to 19) for no use, 39 (36 to 42) for combined oral contraception, 33 (25 to 44) for progestin-only pills, and 23 (17 to 29) for intrauterine device. Standardised myocardial infarction rate per 100 000 person years were 8 (8 to 9) for no use, 18 (16 to 20) for combined oral contraception, 13 (8 to 19) for progestin-only pills, and 11 (7 to 16) for intrauterine device. Compared with no use, current use of combined oral contraception was associated with an adjusted rate ratio of 2.0 (1.9 to 2.2) for ischaemic stroke and 2.0 (1.7 to 2.2) for myocardial infarction. These corresponded to standardised rate differences of 21 (18 to 24) extra ischaemic strokes and 10 (7 to 12) extra myocardial infarctions per 100 000 person years. Compared with no use, current use of progestin-only pills was associated with an adjusted rate ratio of 1.6 for ischaemic stroke and 1.5 (1.1 to 2.1) for myocardial infarction, equating to 15 (6 to 24) extra ischaemic strokes and four (−1 to 9) extra myocardial infarctions per 100 000 person years. Increased arterial thrombotic risk was also observed with use of the combined vaginal ring (adjusted incidence rate ratio of 2.4 (1.5 to 3.7) for ischaemic stroke and 3.8 (2.0 to 7.3) for myocardial infarction), patch (3.4 (1.3 to 9.1) and no myocardial infarctions), and progestin-only implant (2.1 (1.2 to 3.8) and ≤3 myocardial infarctions), whereas no increased risk was observed with progestin-only intrauterine device (1.1 (1.0 to 1.3) for ischaemic stroke and 1.1 (0.9 to 1.3) for myocardial infarction). Use of contemporary oestrogen-progestin and progestin-only contraceptives was associated with an increased risk of ischaemic stroke and, in some cases, myocardial infarction except for the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device, which was not associated with either. Although absolute risks were low, clinicians should include the potential risk of arterial thrombosis in their assessment of the benefits and risks when prescribing a hormonal contraceptive method.

Reference:

BMJ. (2025). Stroke and myocardial infarction with contemporary hormonal contraception: real-world, nationwide, prospective cohort study. BMJ, 388, e082801. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2024-082801

Keywords:

Hormonal, Contraception, Cardiovascular Risk, Women, finds, research




Tags:    
Article Source : BMJ

Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.

NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.

Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Similar News