ADVERTISEMENT

Exposure to common chemical may increase CVD risk

Wednesday September 5, 2012
Printer Icon
line
Select Text Size: Zoom In Zoom Out
line
Comment
Share this Nurse.com Article
rss feed
Exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid, a manmade chemical used in the manufacture of common household products, appeared to be associated with cardiovascular disease and peripheral arterial disease in a study of 1,216 individuals.

Surveys have suggested that PFOA (widely used in the manufacture of products such as lubricants, polishes, paper and textile coatings and food packaging) is detectable in the blood of more than 98% of the U.S. population, researchers noted in background information for the study, which appeared Sept. 3 on the website of the Archives of Internal Medicine. Some evidence has suggested an association may be biologically plausible between PFOA exposure and cardiovascular disease.

Anoop Shankar, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the West Virginia University School of Public Health examined the association between serum levels of PFOA and the presence of CVD and PAD in a nationally representative group of adults. The study used merged data from the 1999-2000 and 2003-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Increasing serum PFOA levels were positively associated with the presence of self-reported CVD and independently measured PAD, and the association appeared to be independent of factors such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, smoking status, body mass index, diabetes mellitus, hypertension and serum cholesterol level, the authors noted.

Compared with the level of PFOA in quartile 1, the reference level in the study, participants in the quartile with the highest serum PFOA levels had a twofold risk of CVD and a 78% higher risk of PAD.

"Our results contribute to the emerging data on health effects of PFCs [perfluoroalkyl chemicals], suggesting for the first time that PFOA exposure is potentially related to CVD and PAD," the authors wrote. "However, owing to the cross-sectional nature of the present study, we cannot conclude that the association is causal."

The authors added that the data "should be interpreted with caution because of the possibility of residual confounding and reverse causality. Future prospective studies are needed to confirm or refute our findings."

In a commentary, Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, MS, of Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in El Paso, wrote that "although it seems clear that additional prospective research is needed to tease out the true cardiovascular effects of PFOA, given the concerns raised by this and prior studies, clinicians will need to act now.

"From a societal point of view, it would make sense to limit or eliminate the use of PFOA and its congeners in industry through legislation and regulation while improving water purification and treatment techniques to try and remove this potentially toxic chemical from our water supply."

The study abstract is available at http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1356532.


Send comments to editor@nurse.com or post comments below.