Top Health Tools
Top Health Tools
Top Reports
Top Reports
Top Articles
Top Articles
Top Reviews
Top Reviews


February 3, 2013 by APRIL McCARTHY
Study Shows Marriage, Cohabitation Decreases Heart Attack Risk In Men and Women of All Ages

Some evidence has shown that married people are generally happier, but that's no reason to rush to the altar as there are plenty of single people out there who are very content and satisfied with their own company. However, when to comes to cardiovascular risk, marriages and cohabitation may offer considerable benefits according to a large population-based study from Finland has shown that being unmarried increases the risk of fatal and non-fatal heart attack in both men and women regardless of age. Being married and cohabiting are associated with “considerably better prognosis of acute cardiac events."

The study, published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, was based on the FINAMI myocardial infarction register data from the years 1993 to 2002.(1,2) The study included information on people over the age of 35 living in four geographical regions of Finland. All fatal and non-fatal cardiac events -- known as “acute cardiac syndromes”, ACS -- were included and cross-referred to the population database. “Our aim,” said the authors, “was to study the differences in the morbidity and prognosis of incident acute coronary syndromes according to socio-demographic characteristics (marital status and household size).”

A previous study in the American Journal of Hypertension
has shown that marital happiness can also help keep blood pressure down and prevent premature aging of the arteries.

The register recorded 15,330 ACS events over the study period of ten years, with just over half (7703) resulting in death within 28 days. Events occurred almost equally among men and women. However, the analysis also showed that the age-standardised incidences of these ACS events were approximately 58--66% higher among unmarried men and 60--65% higher in unmarried women, than among married men and women in all age groups.

The differences in 28-day mortality rate were even greater. These 28-day mortality rates were found to be 60--168% higher in unmarried men and 71--175% higher in unmarried women, than among married men and women.

For example, the 28-day ACS mortality rate in 65-74-year-old married men was 866 per 100,000 persons per year but 1792 per 100,000 per year in unmarried men. This rate did not differ according to previous marital status.

Similarly, mortality rates among 65-74-year old married women were 247 per 100,000 persons per year, but 493 per 100,000 when the woman was unmarried. Statistically, the figures represented a 28-day “case fatality” rate of 26% in the 35-64-year-old married men, 42% in men who had previously been married, and 51% in never-married men. Among women, the corresponding figures were 20%, 32%, and 43%.

Consistent with this finding, the case fatality rate of 35-64-year-old single men and women was higher than that of those living with one or more people.

According to the authors’ background to the study, being unmarried or living alone is known to increase total and cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular disease incidence. However, many of these previous studies have included only men in their analysis, with missing data on women and older age groups.

Why should single living or being unmarried be associated with such a greater susceptibility to coronary events, and particularly fatal events? The authors suggest several possibilities:

  • Differences in the prevalence of traditional cardiovascular risk factors. “We cannot exclude the possibility that persons with poor health status may be more prone to staying unmarried or getting divorced,” the authors state.
  • Married people may be better off, have better health habits, and enjoy higher levels of social support than the unmarried, which will all promote their overall health.
  • Better prospects in the pre-hospital phase because of earlier intervention. “It may be assumed that resuscitation or calling for help was initiated faster and more often among those married or cohabiting,” say the authors.
  • Better treatment once in hospital and after discharge. “We found that a larger proportion of married and cohabiting men received reperfusion therapy at acute stage which may contribute to their better survival after hospitalisation. Lower adherence to secondary preventive medications (aspirin, statins, beta-blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers) among the unmarried may have an adverse effect on long-term prognosis,” they add.

Marriage vs. cohabitation

Many previous studies looking at the benefits of marriage have focused on comparing married couples with single people, or comparing married with cohabiting couples at one point in time.

In another new study, researchers followed 2,737 single men and women over six years to see what happened when they entered a relationship or got married. The study data were drawn from national surveys given in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Participants rated their overall health and happiness, and were also asked questions to assess their self -esteem, depression and the strength of their ties to friends and family.

Over the study period, close to 900 participants married or began living with a romantic partner.

In general, both marriage and cohabitation came with an uptick in well being. Those who got married or started living with a partner experienced higher levels of happiness, and lower levels of depression, than those who remained single, although these advantages faded with time.

People who married did report better overall health compared with those who cohabited, which may be explained by the entitlements (such as health insurance for spouses) that come with marriage.

However, marriage and cohabitation also reduced contact with family and friends compared to being single, and this effect lasted over time.

The researchers noted it's been about 20 years since the surveys they used were performed, and the relative benefits of marriage versus cohabitation may have changed in recent years.

However, it's not clear whether their findings would be more or less true today, Musick said. On the one hand, the experiences of marriage and cohabitation have become increasingly similar. But on the other hand, marriage may still hold a greater social status than cohabitation in the United States, she said.

Author Dr Aino Lammintausta from Turku University Hospital in Finland notes that these differences in prognosis cannot be fully explained by differences in treatment-seeking time or access to effective therapy. The socio-demographic differences reflected in the study’s results are a “considerable population health problem”, she said, which warrants further research to explain.

April McCarthy is a community journalist playing an active role reporting and analyzing world events to advance our health and eco-friendly initiatives.

Reference Sources 89, 101, 131

STAY CONNECTEDNewsletter | RSS | Twitter | YouTube |
This site is owned and operated by 1999-2018. All Rights Reserved. All content on this site may be copied, without permission, whether reproduced digitally or in print, provided copyright, reference and source information are intact and use is strictly for not-for-profit purposes. Please review our copyright policy for full details.
volunteerDonateWrite For Us
Stay Connected With Our Newsletter