Intake of alpha-linolenic acid is not consistently associated with a lower risk of peripheral artery disease: results from a Danish cohort study

Intake of the plant-derived omega-3 fatty acid alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) has been associated with anti-atherosclerotic properties. However, information on the association between ALA intake and development of peripheral artery disease (PAD) is lacking. In this follow-up study, we investigated the association between dietary intake of ALA and the rate of PAD among middle-aged Danish men and women enrolled into the Danish Diet, Cancer and Health cohort between 1993 and 1997. Incident PAD cases were identified through the Danish National Patient Register. Intake of ALA was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire. Statistical analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazard regression allowing for separate baseline hazards among sexes and adjusted for established risk factors for PAD. During a median of 13.6 years of follow-up, we identified 950 valid cases of PAD with complete information on covariates. The median energy-adjusted ALA intake within the cohort was 1.76 g/d (95% central range: 0.94-3.28). In multivariable analyses, we found no statistically significant association between intake of ALA and the rate of PAD (P = 0.339). Also, no statistically significant associations were observed in analyses including additional adjustment for co-morbidities and in sex-specific analyses. In supplemental analyses with additional adjustment for potential dietary risk factors, we found a weak inverse association to PAD with ALA intake above the median, but the association was not statistically significant (P = 0.314). In conclusion, dietary intake of ALA was not consistently associated with decreased risk of PAD

Aortic Dissections in the Population-Based Danish National Patient Registry from 1996-2016:A Validation Study

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the validity of the ICD-10 diagnostic codes for aortic dissections (ADs) in the Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR) based upon positive predictive values (PPV). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cases registered in the DNPR with the unspecific AD diagnostic code DI710 (unspecified AD) from 1996 to 2016, and the specific AD diagnostic codes DI710A (AD Type A) and DI710B (AD Type B) from 2006 to 2016, were included. Available medical records from all registered cases underwent review. Confirmed cases of AD served as “gold standard” when reporting PPV. PPV estimates were stratified by regional differences, date, age at time of diagnosis, and sex. RESULTS: A total of 5018 cases were identified in the DNPR. After merging of data and retrieval of medical records, 3767 cases were eligible for validation. Of these, 2677 cases were verified as AD type A (59.7%), AD type B (38.8%), and unspecified type of AD (1.5%). The average age at diagnosis was 65.1 ±13.0 years (67.3% males). The overall PPV for having an AD when one of the three diagnostic codes were registered from 1996 to 2016 was 71.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 69.6–72.5) and increased significantly over time. From 2006 to 2016, the PPV for the specific AD diagnostic codes was 89.5% (95% CI: 87.4–91.3), whilst the PPV for the unspecific diagnostic code was 63.5% (95% CI: 61.1–65.9). CONCLUSION: We found the overall PPV for the pooled AD diagnostic codes in the DNPR acceptable. However, the two specific AD diagnostic codes presented remarkably higher PPV compared to the unspecific diagnostic code