Periodontal disease as a non-traditional risk factor for acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Objectives: Previous observational studies have suggested an association between periodontal disease (PD) and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. Nonetheless, evidence linking PD with coronary heart disease (CHD) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is still contradictory. We aim to systematically review the role of PD as a risk factor for ACS (myocardial infarction and unstable angina). Methods: The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021286278) and we followed the recommendations of the PRISMA and AMSTAR 2 guidelines. We systematically searched for 7 databases and electronic thesis repositories from inception to February 2022. We included articles without language restriction following the PECO strategy (population: “adult participants”; exposure: “periodontal disease”; comparator: “no periodontal disease”; outcome: “acute coronary syndrome” OR “acute myocardial infarction” OR “unstable angina”). Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were pooled using random effects and heterogeneity was quantified by Cochran’s Q and Higgins’ I2 statistics. Subgroup analyses were carried out according to the participants’ sex, type of diagnosis of PD, type of study, and continent of origin of studies. Results: We included 46 papers (17 cohort, 25 case-control, and 4 cross-sectional studies) that met the inclusion criteria. This meta-analysis includes a total of 6,806,286 participants and at least 68,932 ACS events, mainly myocardial infarction (MI). In accordance with our results, PD is associated with a higher risk of ACS (OR 1.35; 95% CI 1.25-1.45). However, clinical and methodological heterogeneity was significant (I2=86%, p<0.05). In the sensitivity analysis, the exclusion of some studies with “extreme” results (outliers) did not significantly affect the overall estimate or heterogeneity. In subgroup analysis, we found no statistically significant differences between men and women according to subgroup difference tests (I2=0%, p=0.67). Conversely, there were differences according to the type of diagnosis of PD (clinical or self-reported diagnosis), type of study (cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional study), and the continent of origin (North America, South America, Asia, or Europe) of the studies (I²=79%-96%, p<0.10). Of the 46 studies, only 4 had a high risk of bias. Additionally, the funnel plot suggested publication bias. Conclusion: PD may be an important non-traditional risk factor for ACS. Although, this meta-analysis brings together more studies, and therefore more evidence, than any other previous similar study, its results should be interpreted with caution due to the great heterogeneity and the potential presence of bias.