Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Oct 20;17(10):e0276560. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276560

Respiratory symptoms and cardiovascular causes of deaths: A population-based study with 45 years of follow-up

Knut Stavem 1,2,3,*, Henrik Schirmer 2,4, Amund Gulsvik 5
Editor: Kjell Torén6
PMCID: PMC9584444  PMID: 36264870

Abstract

This study determined the association between respiratory symptoms and death from cardiovascular (CV) diseases during 45 years in a pooled sample of four cohorts of random samples of the Norwegian population with 95,704 participants. Respiratory symptoms were assessed using a modification of the MRC questionnaire on chronic bronchitis. We analyzed the association between respiratory symptoms and specific cardiovascular deaths by using Cox regression analysis with age as the time variable, accounting for cluster-specific random effects using shared frailty for study cohort. Hazard ratios (HR) for death were adjusted for sex, highest attained education, smoking habits, occupational air pollution, and birth cohort. Overall, 12,491 (13%) of participants died from CV diseases: 4,123 (33%) acute myocardial infarction, 2,326 (18%) other ischemic heart disease, 2,246 (18%) other heart diseases, 2,553 (20%) cerebrovascular diseases, and 1,120 (9%) other vascular diseases. The adjusted HR (95% confidence interval) for CV deaths was 1.9 (1.7–2.1) in men and 1.5 (1.2–1.9) in women for “yes” to the question “Are you breathless when you walk on level ground at an ordinary pace?”. The same item response showed an adjusted HR for death from acute myocardial infarction of 1.8 (1.5–2.1), other ischemic heart disease 2.2 (1.8–2.7), other heart diseases 1.5 (1.1–1.9), cerebrovascular disease 1.8 (1.5–2.3), and other circulatory diseases 1.7 (1.2–2.4). The adjusted HR for CV death was 1.3 (1.2–1.4) when answering positive to the question” Are you more breathless than people of your own age when walking uphill?”. However, positive answers to questions on cough, phlegm, wheezing and attacks of breathlessness were after adjustments not associated with early CV deaths. The associations between CV deaths and breathlessness were also present in never smokers. Self-reported breathlessness was associated with CV deaths and could be an early marker of CV deaths.

Introduction

Respiratory symptoms can be markers of diseases of the heart, blood vessels, lungs, airways and other organs. Indeed, multimorbidity of chronic pulmonary and chronic cardiovascular (CV) diseases is increasingly recognized as a problem worldwide [1].

The symptoms are associated with increased levels of systemic inflammatory markers. Respiratory symptoms have been used as indicators of effects of drugs and rehabilitation [2,3], as well as palliative care in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) [4]. Few population studies have focused on the predictive value of respiratory symptoms in deaths of fatal CV deaths using the European (EU) classification of diseases [5]. Previous studies lack statistical power to detect significant risks for subgroups of CV deaths with relatively few events. There is little information available on the association between respiratory symptoms and other heart disease (EU 48), or other circulatory disease (subgroup of EU 50).

During the first 25 years after the introduction of the British Medical Research Council (MRC) questionnaire on chronic bronchitis [6,7], researchers mostly focused on the association of persistent cough and phlegm with death [811]. However, after the community study of Tecumseh, Michigan reported an association between dyspnoe and coronary disease [12], more emphasis was put on the association between breathlessness and CV deaths in surveys. An association of breathlessness with all-cause deaths were confirmed in Sweden [13], Denmark [14], United Kingdom [15,16], and for cough and phlegm in Finland [17], but not in Denmark [18].

The first surveys were often small samples of occupational groups or communities of men, above 40 years of age, and the analyses were not adjusted for occupational exposure or educational levels. The questions on respiratory symptoms differed in wording, and the outcome variables were most often all-cause mortality, coronary deaths, or stroke fatalities. Two studies have reported on two subgroups of CV disease, namely death from ischaemic heart disease and stroke [19,20]. Due to the limited population sizes or observation times in previous studies, further research from larger studies is needed to study less common events, as well as events in strata of the populations, such as never smokers.

In two previous studies, we found a consistent, positive association between respiratory symptoms reported and all cause-mortality [21], as well as for COPD and lung cancer as underlying cause of death [22]. As circulatory diseases account for 31% for all-cause mortality in 2012 in Norway [23], we decided to extend the analyses to investigate the long-term relation between respiratory symptoms and mortality due to all EU subgroups of CV diseases except for lung embolism. The risk of respiratory symptoms on subgroups on CV mortality was adjusted for gender, age groups, smoking habits, occupational exposure to air pollution as well as highest -attainable education and self-reported heart and lung diseases.

Materials and methods

Study population

This multicohort study used harmonized individual-level data from four cross-sectional surveys in the City of Oslo 1972 and 1998–1999, Hordaland County in 1985, 1988–1990 (including Sauda municipality in Rogaland County) and 1998–1999 [24]. Oslo, the capital of Norway, had 477,476 inhabitants in 1972 and 499,693 persons in 1998. Hordaland County is a combined rural and urban (Bergen) population with 399,702 persons in 1985, 405,063 in 1988 and 428,823 in 1998.

The target population was born 1895–1982. The sample frames were updated lists from the Norwegian National Population Registry. Invitees were drawn at random for the 1972 (Oslo 72), 1985 (Hordaland 85) and 1998–1999 (Oslo/Hordaland 98–99) surveys. The random sampling was conducted by the national Population register using a random number generator. The 1988–1990 survey (Støvlunge 88–90) invited all men born 1914–1959, plus a 10% sample of the general population of City of Bergen born 1895–1950 and examined in 1965–1970 [25], leading to about 6% women in this cohort. We excluded 3,523 persons already included in one cohort from later cohorts, and the eligible population sample comprised 158,702 unique persons (Table 1). We have previously presented the recruitment and pooling of these cohorts [21].

Table 1. Flowchart of randomly sampled individuals in the study of respiratory symptoms and cardiovascular deaths in Norway.

  Oslo cohort 1972 Hordaland county cohort 1985 Hordaland county and Sauda municipality Rogaland county 1988–1990 Hordaland and Oslo counties cohort 1998–1999 Total
Sample drawn from target populations 19998 4992 112235 25000 162225
Present in previous samples, excluded 1* 2 1893 1627 3523
Eligible, unique persons 19997 4990 110342 23373 158702
Eligible after missing times excluded 19892 4982 108812 23210 156896
Respondents (response to at least 1 of 17 questionnaire items) 17690 4461 77003 15870 115024
Respondents to smoking habits 17680 4404 76675 15623 114380
Respondents to smoking habits and education 17377 4347 75406 14994 112124
Respondents to smoking habits, education and occupational exposure 16445 4307 71958 14765 107475
Respondents to all items on respiratory symptoms 16084 4137 69168 14492 103881
Responded to three items on previous heart disease 15421 3785 63540 12958 95704

*removed duplicate record.

In all surveys, we used a self-administered questionnaire filled out at home by the person invited, without any help from persons in the survey center. In the analyses, we included respondents who provided information on smoking, education, occupational exposure to air pollution, respiratory symptoms, as well as additional information previous heart diseases, in total 95 704 persons; 60% of the sample of unique persons (Table 1).

The start of the observation was the date of returning the fill out self-administered questionnaire to the survey center. However, the actual date was not available in two of the cohorts. In one cohort we had the month and year of participation, and in the fourth we used a fixed date approximately when invitations were sent.

Ethical approval and consent

Regional committees for Medical Research Ethics were established in Norway in 1985 [26]. Therefore, for the first survey cohort in 1972 (Oslo 72) there was no requirement for ethical approval. Answering and returning the questionnaire was considered as an informed consent.

The participants of the Hordaland County cohort 1985 survey (Hordaland 85) and the Hordaland and Oslo counties cohort 1998–1999 survey (Oslo/Hordaland 98–99) all signed an informed consent, which was approved by the Regional Ethical Committee of Health Region West [24].

The attendants of the Hordaland County and Sauda municipality in Rogaland County 1988–1990 survey (Støvlunge 88–90) were invited to X-ray surveillance for tuberculosis where attendance is demanded by Norwegian law. The consent information described the health examination, including risk of technical procedures and blood collections, as well as data protection and genetic assessment. Participants could ask questions about the examination, and they were required to give written consent before any part of the health examination was conducted [24].

The Norwegian Data Inspectorate allowed the use of unique personal identification numbers to gather all information collected in the four surveys on each individual and to link information from Statistics of Norway on death, causes of deaths and highest attained education. The Norwegian Directorate of Health and Social Services granted us permission to receive information on notification of causes of deaths. Finally, the Data Inspectorate, the Norwegian Directorate of Health and Social Services and Regional Ethical Committee granted permission to have a common data registry for all surveys, for all follow-up studies, and the specific causes of deaths [24].

The study was approved by the Regional Committee on Medical Research Ethics (reference 2017/1679), the Norwegian Data Inspectorate (07/00414), and the Norwegian Directorate of Health (07/949).

Questionnaire

We used a modification of a questionnaire on respiratory symptoms, which was approved by MRC Committee on research into Chronic Bronchitis in 1966 [7].

The questionnaire included 11 questions (Table 2), covering current cough, phlegm, wheezing, periods of cough and/or breathlessness with and without exercise. This questionnaire has previously been presented [2022,24,27]. The questions were aggregated into three symptom groups: breathlessness on exercise scored 0 to 4; cough and/or phlegm symptoms scored 0 to 5, and attacks of breathlessness and wheezing scored 0 to 2 [21,22]. A higher score represents more severe symptoms. The validity of the Norwegian respiratory questionnaire has been evaluated [28] and compared with the original MRC questionnaire [27].

Table 2. Questions (Q) on respiratory symptoms and scores.

Respiratory symptom group Questions, score
Cough and phlegm (Bronchitis like symptoms), scores 0–5 Q 8. Do you usually cough and clear your throat in the morning?
Yes = 1, no = 0.
Q 9. Do you usually cough during the day? Yes = 1, no = 0.
Q 10. When you cough or clear your throat do you usually bring up phlegm? Yes = 1, no = 0.
Q 11. Do you have cough for 3 months or more altogether during a year? Yes = 1, no = 0.
Q 12. During the last 2 years, have had a cough and/or phlegm in connection with a cold for more than 3 weeks? Yes = 1, no = 0.
Attacks of breathlessness and wheeze (Asthma like symptoms), scores 0–2 Q 17. Do you have attacks of breathlessness? Yes = 1, no = 0.
Q 18.Have you ever had wheezing in your chest? Yes = 1, no = 0.
Breathless, scores 0–4 Q 13. Are you more breathless than people of your own age when walking uphill? Yes = 1, no = 0.
Q 14. Are you breathless when you climb two flights of stairs at an ordinary pace? Yes = 1, no = 0.
Q 15. Are you breathless when you walk on level ground at an ordinary pace? Yes = 1, no = 0
Q 16. Are you breathless when at rest? Yes = 1, no = 0

The questionnaire also included questions on smoking history and occupational exposure to air pollution [29]. Smoking was categorized as current smoker (daily at the time of the study), ex-smokers or never smokers. Occupational exposure to air pollution was defined by responding “yes” to “Have you been exposed to particulates, gases or damp at your working place?”

Self-report of cardiac diseases was defined as a positive reply to the question: Have you at any time been treated by a physician or have you ever been in hospital because of a) heart infarction, b) angina pectoris, and/or c) other heart diseases? Self-report of pulmonary diseases was defined as positive reply to the question: Have you at any time been treated by a physician or have you ever been in hospital because of a) bronchitis, b) asthma, c) emphysema and/or tuberculosis? A negative or a do not know answer was defined as a negative answer.

Follow-up and census data

Date of death and emigration until December 31, 2016 were obtained from the NorwegianCause of Death Registry. Educational attainment was obtained from the national census for each decade and grouped according to the maximum length of education using three levels: compulsory education (7–10 years), medium level (11–13 years) and university level (≥14 years).

All inhabitants of Norway have a unique personal identification number that allows complete follow-up until death or emigration. In total 156,896 people were people were observed in the pooled cohorts; median follow-up was 26.7 years (range 1 day to 45.2 years). The cumulative time for observation in the total sample was 3,541,219 person-years. A total of 95,704 respondents with known smoking status that had responded to items on respiratory symptoms and previous heart disease represented 2,285,97 person-years at risk, of whom 32,583 were never smokers and represented 813,565 person-years at risk.

Classification of causes of death

The Norwegian Cause of Death Registry has directly identifiable data on individuals from 1951 [30]. It covers about 98% of all deaths in Norway, and most missing values are for people dying abroad. Until 2005 the underlying cause of death was determined manually by the coding personnel at the Cause of Death Registry. From 2005 the underlying cause of death has been determined electronically by a software application, Automated Classification of Medical Entities (ACME), developed by the National Center for Health Statistics in the US. The listed causes of death on the death certificate are first translated manually into ICD-10 codes, and then the ACME software determines the underlying cause of death [3133].

The registry classifies deaths according to the European Shortlist for causes of death (EU) [5,34]. The classification of CV causes as underlying cause (Table 3) includes acute myocardial infarction (EU 46) and other ischaemic heart disease (EU 47) i.e. angina pectoris and heart aneurysm which can be combined to ischaemic heart disease (EU 46–47), other heart diseases (E48), cerebrovascular disease (E 49) and other diseases of the circulatory system (EU 50) [35]. The category “Other diseases of the circulatory system” was divided into lung embolism (EU 50a) and others (EU 50b). Ischemic heart disease (EU 46–47) are diseases causing less blood and oxygen to the heart musculature. Other heart diseases (EU 48) comprises heart failure, non-rheumatic valvular diseases, heart arrhythmia, inflammations of the heart (pericarditis, endocarditis, myocarditis) and cardiomyopathy. Cerebrovascular deaths (EU 49) may be caused by cerebral haemorrhage, cerebral embolism, arteriosclerosis of the cerebral arteries, or aneurysm [36]. Other circulatory diseases (EU 50b exclusive lung embolism) includes diseases such as chronic rheumatic valvular diseases, hypertensive heart disease, pulmonary heart/vessel diseases, arteriosclerosis, aortic aneurysm, and other diseases of the arterial, venous and lymphatic system.

Table 3. Classification of underlying cardiovascular causes of death.

Cause EU 2012 classification ICD-8 ICD-9 ICD-10
Acute myocardial infarction 46 410–411 410–411 I21.0-I21.9, I22.0-I22.9
Other ischemic heart disease 47 412–414 412–414 I20,I24-I25
Other heart diseases 48 421–429 421–429 I31-I51
Cerebrovascular 49 430–438 430–438 I60-I69
Other circulatory 50 (excl. lung embolism) 390–405, 420–429, 440–448, 451–458 (excl. 415.1) 390–405, 415–416, 420–429, 440–449, 451–459 (excl. 415.1) I05-I13,I26-I28, I70-I99 (excl. I26.9)

Death certificates are the only source of information on death in >90% of cases. Autopsy rates in Norway have fluctuated over time.

In the early 1960 it was about 10% of all deaths, increasing to 18% in 1986 and gradually declining to slightly above 7% in 2010 [32]. The rate was between 7 and 9% from 2011 to 2019 [33]. The diagnostic validity of cerebral stroke and ischemic heart disease as underlying cause of death in this registry showed a substantial agreement between mortality statistics and autopsy findings, although there was a selection of cases for post-mortem examinations [37].

Statistical analyses

Descriptive statistics are presented as number (%). For start dates for observations in the cohorts, we used 5 October 1972 in the Oslo county 1972 cohort, the 15th of the actual starting month in the Hordaland county and Sauda municipality cohort 1988–1990, and the actual start date in the other two cohorts. Other missing start dates for participants were imputed using the median start date in the same cohort: 31 December 1989 in the Hordaland county and Sauda municipality cohort 1988–1990 (n = 100) and 5 October 1998 in the Oslo and Hordaland counties cohort 1998–1999 (n = 4).

The cohort members were followed until death or censored at the date of emigration or end of follow-up on 31 December 2016, whichever came first. For some people that emigrated (n = 231), we did not have a date of emigration, but only an interval. These cases were censored at the mid-point of the interval [21]. We did not impute missing values for other variables.

We pooled the four cohorts and analyzed the association of symptom scores of breathlessness on effort, cough or/and phlegm and attacks of breathlessness or/and wheeze with cause-specific mortality. We used Cox proportional hazards analysis, with age as the time variable [38]. The analyses were prepared using shared frailty for study cohort, i.e. incorporating cluster-specific random effects to account for within-cluster homogeneity in outcomes [39].

All analyses were multivariable, adjusting for sex, education (<10, 11–13, ≥14 years), smoking habits (never, previous, current smoker), occupational exposure (dust/fume vs. none), birth cohort (1895–1919, 1920–1929, 1930–1939, 1940–1949, 1950–1959, 1960–) and self-reported history of CV disease (angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, or other heart disease). The results are presented as hazard ratios (HR) of death with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

In addition, we conducted analyses in strata of the pooled sample (women, men, never smokers) using a similar approach with the same covariates.

Finally, we repeated the same analysis in the pooled sample after excluding (1) those with self-reported heart disease (angina pectoris, myocardial infarction or other heart disease) with the same covariates as in the primary analysis, and (2) those with self-reported heart disease or lung disease (bronchitis, asthma, emphysema and/or tuberculosis).

The proportional hazards assumption was checked graphically using log-log plots and was considered acceptable. We used Stata version 17.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA) for all analyses. We chose a 5% significance level with two-sided tests.

Results

The target population comprised 156,896 persons, while altogether 95,704 (61%) responded to the relevant items and were included in the analysis (S1 Table). The sample of persons analysed compared with persons in the four target populations differed by being slightly older, fewer with only compulsory education but without sex differences. However identical smoking habits and occupational exposure were observed in those who answered or not answered a self-administered questionnaire on respiratory symptoms. The percentages of participants in the analysed sample compared with the target population was slightly higher for the two first surveys (Oslo 72, Hordaland 85) compared with the two last surveys (Støvlunge 88–90, Oslo/Hordaland 98–99) The overall representativeness of the analysed sample for the target population was excellent.

Respiratory symptoms were prevalent in the adult Norwegian population, as 19% in our sample of 95,704 participants without self-reported heart disease reported one or more symptoms of breathlessness, 34% had one or more symptoms on cough and phlegm and 23% had attacks of breathlessness and/or wheeze (S2 Table).

Per 31 December 2016, 12,490 persons (13%) had died from CV diseases, 10,229 men and 2,261 women. The causes of CV deaths were: 4,123 (33%) acute myocardial infarction (EU 46), 2,326 (18%) with other ischemic heart diseases (EU 47), 2,246 (18%) other heart diseases (EU 48), 2,553 (20%) with cerebrovascular diseases (EU 49), 124 (1%) with lung embolism (ICD-10 I26.9) and 1.120 (9%) with other circulatory diseases (EU 50 exclusive lung embolism).

Acute myocardial infarction and other ischemic heart diseases

The hazard ratio (HR) for death showed a similar pattern for deaths of acute myocardial infarction and deaths of other ischemic diseases (Table 4).

Table 4. Hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals and p-values according to cause of death, multivariable proportional hazards regression analysis with adjustment for sex, education, smoking status, occupational exposure to gas/dust, previous angina pectoris, previous other heart disease and previous myocardial infarction, and birth cohort (n = 95704).

All cardiovascular Acute MI Other ischemic heart Other heart Cerebrovascular Other circulatory
  HR 95%CI HR 95%CI HR 95%CI HR 95%CI HR 95%CI HR 95%CI
Breathless on effort, score (vs. 0)
1 1.30*** [1.23,1.38] 1.30*** [1.19,1.43] 1.50*** [1.32,1.69] 1.17* [1.02,1.34] 1.31*** [1.15,1.48] 1.23* [1.02,1.48]
2 1.50*** [1.41,1.60] 1.47*** [1.32,1.64] 1.73*** [1.51,2.00] 1.51*** [1.29,1.76] 1.32*** [1.13,1.55] 1.51*** [1.21,1.88]
3 1.81*** [1.64,1.99] 1.75*** [1.50,2.05] 2.19*** [1.80,2.66] 1.46** [1.12,1.91] 1.83*** [1.46,2.30] 1.68** [1.19,2.36]
4 1.64*** [1.38,1.95] 1.56** [1.16,2.09] 1.75** [1.20,2.54] 1.10 [0.66,1.84] 2.12*** [1.46,3.09] 2.11** [1.26,3.54]
Cough and phlegm, score (vs. 0)
1 0.98 [0.93,1.03] 0.99 [0.90,1.07] 1.04 [0.93,1.17] 0.97 [0.86,1.10] 0.94 [0.84,1.05] 0.87 [0.73,1.03]
2 1.04 [0.97,1.12] 1.08 [0.96,1.22] 1.23** [1.05,1.42] 0.97 [0.82,1.16] 0.91 [0.77,1.07] 0.92 [0.73,1.16]
3 1.10* [1.01,1.20] 0.95 [0.81,1.11] 1.07 [0.87,1.31] 1.24* [1.01,1.54] 1.26* [1.05,1.53] 1.12 [0.85,1.47]
4 1.01 [0.91,1.13] 0.84 [0.70,1.02] 1.02 [0.80,1.29] 1.26 [0.98,1.61] 1.05 [0.82,1.35] 1.22 [0.89,1.66]
5 1.10 [0.98,1.24] 0.87 [0.87,1.31] 1.05 [0.80,1.38] 1.41* [1.06,1.88] 1.00 [0.75,1.34] 0.93 [0.62,1.40]
Attacks of breathlessness and wheeze, score (vs. 0)
1 0.97 [0.92,1.02] 1.02 [0.94,1.11] 0.95 [0.85,1.06] 0.99 [0.88,1.12] 0.85** [0.75,0.95] 1.10 [0.93,1.29]
2 0.93 [0.86,1.01] 0.92 [0.80,1.05] 1.06 [0.89,1.25] 0.87 [0.71,1.07] 0.83 [0.69,1.01] 1.01 [0.77,1.31]

* p<0.05

** p<0.01

*** p<0.001.

An increasing risk of deaths due to ischaemic heart disease was observed with higher breathlessness score until breathless score 3. An affirmative answer to Q16: Are you breathless when at rest? (score 4), predicted a lower risk of ischaemic heart disease death than the affirmative question Q 15 Are you breathless when you walk on level ground at an ordinary pace. Increasing score of cough and phlegm score did not show any overt association with deaths due to ischaemic heart disease. Surprisingly death due acute myocardial infarction declined with increasing score of attacks of breathlessness and wheeze, but this was not observed for deaths due to other ischaemic diseases

Other heart diseases

A trend of higher mortality due to other heart diseases (Table 4) was observed with increasing score of breathlessness on effort, while breathlessness at rest had a lower risk than when walking on level ground. However, a cough phlegm score with yes to 3 or more questions was borderline associated with deaths due to cardio vascular diseases. The trends of risks for deaths of other heart diseases did not differ from the deaths of ischemic heart diseases.

Cerebrovascular disease

The risk of stroke deaths increased with breathlessness score (Table 4). The risk of cough and phlegm for lethal stroke was not observed in any dose-response way. However, unexpectedly an inverse association was observed between stroke mortality and a single asthmatic symptom but not for combination of symptoms.

Other circulatory diseases

The risk factors of respiratory symptoms for lethal other circulatory diseases (excl. lung embolism) were similar to deaths for all CV diseases (Table 4).

Stratified analyses

Women

Altogether 20,221 women were included in this analyse (Table 5). A clear association and an increased risk of CV deaths was observed with breathlessness at lower level of exercise. The multivariable proportional hazard regression showed also slightly less risk for CV death in the presence of self-report of both wheezing and attacks of breathlessness. The load of cough and phlegm symptoms did not show any significant risk for CV deaths. The patterns of risk factors for early CV deaths in women was similar for the five specific CV causes of deaths.

Table 5. Stratified analyses for women and men.

Hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals and p-values according to cause of death, multivariable proportional hazards regression analysis with adjustment for education, smoking status, occupational exposure to gas/dust, previous angina pectoris, previous other heart disease and previous myocardial infarction, and birth cohort.

All cardiovascular Acute myocardial infarction Other ischemic heart Other heart Cerebrovascular Other circulatory
  HR 95%CI HR 95%CI HR 95%CI HR 95%CI HR 95%CI HR 95%CI
Women (n = 20,221)
Breathless on effort, score (vs. 0)
1 1.15* [1.00,1.32] 0.96 [0.73,1.27] 1.37 [0.97,1.94] 0.98 [0.71,1.34] 1.30* [1.02,1.67] 1.35 [0.88,2.08]
2 1.36*** [1.17,1.58] 1.31 [0.99,1.74] 1.90*** [1.33,2.72] 1.33 [0.95,1.86] 1.14 [0.84,1.55] 1.24 [0.73,2.10]
3 1.51*** [1.20,1.91] 1.81** [1.23,2.64] 1.03 [0.52,2.01] 1.70 [0.99,2.93] 1.45 [0.91,2.32] 1.08 [0.45,2.60]
4 1.32 [0.91,1.92] 1.01 [0.50,2.03] 1.07 [0.40,2.92] 1.98 [0.84,4.71] 1.62 [0.78,3.34] 1.59 [0.51,4.90]
Cough and phlegm, score (vs. 0)
1 0.92 [0.82,1.04] 0.95 [0.76,1.20] 1.00 [0.73,1.36] 0.90 [0.68,1.18] 0.93 [0.74,1.17] 0.75 [0.49,1.15]
2 1.15 [0.98,1.35] 1.26 [0.94,1.70] 1.34 [0.89,2.00] 1.22 [0.85,1.74] 0.96 [0.68,1.34] 0.97 [0.57,1.66]
3 1.15 [0.94,1.40] 1.06 [0.71,1.57] 1.07 [0.62,1.86] 1.23 [0.79,1.91] 1.38 [0.97,1.97] 0.99 [0.51,1.89]
4 1.27 [0.98,1.65] 1.24 [0.77,2.01] 1.46 [0.76,2.79] 1.38 [0.75,2.54] 1.35 [0.81,2.25] 0.88 [0.34,2.24]
5 1.05 [0.77,1.41] 1.07 [0.61,1.85] 0.73 [0.30,1.78] 0.97 [0.46,2.02] 1.47 [0.86,2.50] 0.6 [0.20,1.79]
Attacks of breathlessness and wheeze, score (vs. 0)
1 0.92 [0.81,1.05] 0.84 [0.66,1.07] 0.98 [0.71,1.36] 0.88 [0.66,1.18] 0.83 [0.64,1.06] 1.54* [1.05,2.27]
2 0.80* [0.65,0.99] 0.97 [0.67,1.39] 0.81 [0.47,1.39] 0.67 [0.40,1.10] 0.64* [0.41,0.98] 1.26 [0.66,2.42]
Men (n = 75,483).
Breathless on effort, score (vs. 0)
1 1.34*** [1.26,1.42] 1.37*** [1.24,1.52] 1.52*** [1.34,1.74] 1.22** [1.05,1.43] 1.30*** [1.13,1.51] 1.2 [0.97,1.48]
2 1.53*** [1.42,1.64] 1.49*** [1.32,1.68] 1.70*** [1.46,1.98] 1.54*** [1.29,1.84] 1.39*** [1.16,1.66] 1.57*** [1.24,2.00]
3 1.85*** [1.66,2.06] 1.69*** [1.42,2.01] 2.34*** [1.91,2.88] 1.42* [1.04,1.92] 1.96*** [1.51,2.55] 1.81** [1.25,2.63]
4 1.70*** [1.40,2.06] 1.62** [1.17,2.25] 1.84** [1.23,2.76] 0.91 [0.48,1.73] 2.34*** [1.50,3.63] 2.15* [1.20,3.88]
Cough and phlegm, score (vs. 0)
1 0.99 [0.94,1.05] 0.99 [0.90,1.09] 1.06 [0.94,1.19] 0.99 [0.87,1.13] 0.94 [0.83,1.07] 0.9 [0.75,1.08]
2 1.02 [0.94,1.10] 1.06 [0.93,1.20] 1.21* [1.03,1.42] 0.91 [0.74,1.11] 0.89 [0.73,1.07] 0.9 [0.70,1.17]
3 1.09 [0.99,1.21] 0.94 [0.79,1.12] 1.08 [0.87,1.34] 1.24 [0.98,1.58] 1.22 [0.98,1.53] 1.16 [0.85,1.58]
4 0.97 [0.87,1.09] 0.79* [0.64,0.98] 0.99 [0.76,1.27] 1.23 [0.93,1.62] 0.98 [0.74,1.29] 1.3 [0.94,1.81]
5 1.11 [0.98,1.27] 1.07 [0.86,1.34] 1.1 [0.83,1.46] 1.54** [1.13,2.11] 0.87 [0.61,1.24] 1 [0.64,1.56]
Attacks of breathlessness and wheeze, score (vs. 0)
1 0.98 [0.93,1.03] 1.05 [0.96,1.14] 0.95 [0.84,1.07] 1.01 [0.88,1.15] 0.85* [0.74,0.97] 1.02 [0.86,1.22]
2 0.96 [0.88,1.04] 0.91 [0.78,1.06] 1.09 [0.91,1.30] 0.93 [0.74,1.16] 0.9 [0.73,1.12] 0.96 [0.72,1.29]

* p<0.05

** p<0.01

*** p<0.001.

Men

Altogether 75,483 men were included in this analysis, and the pattern of association between respiratory symptoms and CV deaths in men was similar to that in women (Table 5).

The risk of deaths due to CV for each exercise level of breathlessness score was higher in men than women. Cough and phlegm were not associated with increased risk of CV deaths.

No consistent association was observed between cough and phlegm scores or attacks of breathlessness and wheezing with deaths of all CV diseases or subgroups of CV diseases.

Never smokers

In the group of 32,583 never smokers (Table 6) there was a trend of increasing HR with breathless score from 0 to 3, while no significant association was observed for breathless score 4. However, cough and phlegm were not a risk factor for death from CV diseases. The associations between self-reported previous clinical diagnoses of heart diseases and CV deaths were similar in never smokers as in the total population.

Table 6. Never-smokers.

Hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals and p-values according to cause of death, multivariable proportional hazards regression analysis adjusted for sex, education, occupational exposure to gas/dust, previous angina pectoris, previous other heart disease and previous myocardial infarction, and birth cohort (n = 32583).

All CV Acute MI Other ischemic heart Other heart Cerebrovascular Other circulatory
  HR 95%CI HR 95%CI HR 95%CI HR 95%CI HR 95%CI HR 95%CI
Breathless on effort, score (vs. 0)
1 1.19** [1.05,1.34] 1.09 [0.88,1.36] 1.65*** [1.27,2.16] 1.20 [0.92,1.56] 1.07 [0.83,1.39] 1.10 [0.69,1.77]
2 1.52*** [1.33,1.74] 1.49** [1.17,1.88] 2.31*** [1.73,3.09] 1.48** [1.10,1.98] 1.18 [0.87,1.59] 1.18 [0.67,2.07]
3 2.06*** [1.68,2.54] 2.23*** [1.59,3.13] 3.14*** [2.04,4.82] 1.39 [0.79,2.45] 1.76* [1.08,2.87] 1.78 [0.74,4.26]
4 0.97 [0.59,1.58] 0.67 [0.25,1.83] 2.15 [0.92,5.01] 1.07 [0.39,2.98] 0.61 [0.15,2.51] 0.85 [0.11,6.35]
Cough and phlegm, score (vs. 0)
1 0.89* [0.81,0.99] 0.94 [0.78,1.13] 0.89 [0.69,1.15] 0.86 [0.69,1.07] 0.89 [0.72,1.11] 0.86 [0.59,1.26]
2 1.09 [0.92,1.29] 0.83 [0.59,1.18] 1.87*** [1.35,2.60] 1.09 [0.76,1.56] 0.92 [0.63,1.35] 1.01 [0.53,1.93]
3 1.00 [0.80,1.24] 0.98 [0.65,1.47] 1.16 [0.69,1.92] 0.92 [0.57,1.49] 1.08 [0.69,1.69] 0.93 [0.41,2.14]
4 0.95 [0.68,1.32] 0.87 [0.46,1.65] 1.18 [0.57,2.45] 0.67 [0.29,1.52] 1.36 [0.73,2.51] 0.75 [0.18,3.09]
5 0.80 [0.55,1.17] 0.86 [0.44,1.69] 0.49 [0.15,1.54] 1.08 [0.55,2.14] 0.73 [0.30,1.78] 0.42 [0.06,3.11]
Attacks of breathlessness and wheeze, score (vs. 0)
1 0.99 [0.88,1.11] 1.02 [0.83,1.26] 0.95 [0.73,1.24] 1.08 [0.84,1.38] 0.87 [0.68,1.12] 1.13 [0.74,1.74]
2 0.95 [0.77,1.16] 0.96 [0.66,1.40] 0.87 [0.55,1.38] 1.21 [0.80,1.84] 0.70 [0.43,1.14] 1.15 [0.53,2.47]

* p<0.05

** p<0.01

*** p<0.001.

Persons without self-reported heart and/or lung diseases

After excluding persons with known heart disease at baseline the sample consisted of 90,316 persons (S3 Table). The association of breathlessness on effort with the increased risk of CV deaths was unanimous. However, neither cough/phlegm score nor attacks of breathless and wheezing score were associated with CV deaths.

When excluding all persons with known lung diseases (bronchitis, asthma, emphysema and/or tuberculosis) in addition to known heart disease (n = 72,339) the associations between respiratory symptoms and CV deaths were essentially unchanged (S4 Table).

Discussion

Main findings

This is the first study showing a consistent association between graded breathlessness and five different causes of deaths within CV diseases after adjusting for sex, age, birth cohort, highest attained education, smoking habits, occupational exposure to air pollution and previous clinical diagnosis of heart diseases. The associations increased with the severity of breathlessness until score 3, and the pattern of associations was similar in women and in never smokers.

Breathlessness showed a higher HR for ischaemic heart disease than for other heart diseases, which include inflammatory heart diseases such as endocarditis, myocarditis, and cardiomyopathies. The cough and phlegm score, as well as the attacks of breathlessness and wheezing score, had none or little value for predicting subgroups of CV deaths. A high attainable level of education was a major and consistent predictor of reduced risk of CV death.

This study comprises a very large pooled cohort with long follow-up, enabling us to present new data on five causes of specific deaths from CV diseases. It would not be possible or meaningful to detect some of the associations in smaller cohorts. This explains why there is little previous information on the association between respiratory symptoms and the less common causes of CV deaths.

Cause of breathlessness in heart diseases may be myocardial ischaemia causing transient episodes of left ventricular end-diastolic as well as left atrial pressure increase with subsequent transient or long-term pulmonary engorgement. This leads to increase airways resistance, and may come before any changes in pulmonary compliance [40,41]. Accordingly, the revised Diamond and Forrester table of pre-test probabilities of obstructive coronary disease in the European Society of Cardiology guidelines on chronic coronary syndromes 2019 lists increasing risk of obstructive coronary artery disease with dyspnoea only or dyspnoea as the primary symptom [4244].

That there was less association of the CV outcomes between breathlessness score 4 than score 3, might be related to one of the questions “Are you breathless when at rest?”. It is possible that this item captures other types of deconditioning than those related to CV risk, such as anxiety or hyperventilation.

Cough and phlegm are signs of chronic infection of the bronchial mucosa. Although infections may play some role in the development of coronary disease, a causal verification is lacking. A medical history of chronic lung disease predicted 22% lower risk of obstructive coronary artery disease in a study of elective coronary angiography from the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry [45].

Comparison with other studies

The predictive value of a simple, postal questionnaire on CV symptoms for detection of early deaths of coronary diseases was observed more than 40 years ago [8,10], but they did not adjust for other respiratory symptoms like breathlessness. However, a community study of Tecumseh, Michigan showed that the mortality rate of coronary heart disease was twice the rate for cough and phlegm in men and women [12].

The present study supports and extends the previous findings in one of the four cohorts with 30 years follow up [20], which showed a strong association between respiratory symptoms and deaths due to ischaemic heart disease and a weaker association between respiratory symptoms and stroke.

The Nord-Trøndelag county study in Norway of 9,462 persons followed for 14 years did not find an association between respiratory symptoms and CV mortality [46]. The respiratory questions were more or less identical to those in the present study, and the analyses were adjusted for age, smoking status, BMI, self-reported physical activity, education, and lung function but not for occupational exposure. Their population at risk was only a tenth of the present study, and there were no analyses of subgroups of CV deaths.

The Busselton study in Australia [19] investigated the association between respiratory symptoms and deaths due to coronary and stroke diseases with 26 years of follow up of about 4,300 subjects. The study dichotomized the respiratory symptoms, whereas the present study had graded responses of several categories of symptoms. However, the Busselton study included lung function and several CV risk factors in the analysis, finding that only dyspnoea was associated with coronary deaths in men and women.

A recent population-based survey in the US, with 10,881 persons followed for an average of 19 years, reported that persons with mild or moderate/severe dyspnoea, but free of previous cardiopulmonary disease, had an increased risk of incident heart failure and myocardial infarction [47].

A small population-based survey in Sweden of birth cohort 1914, with 699 men and 99% follow up of deaths, reported that continuous and incident breathlessness was associated with cardiac events, however this was statistically non-significant after adjusting for competing events and confounders [48].

A population-based survey in 2015–2016 in Tromsø, Norway included 1,539 people >40 years of age. Heart failure was defined by echocardiography [49] and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease by spirometry [4], and a questionnaire recorded respiratory symptoms. The prevalence of heart failure was 9% and of COPD was 5%, but only 10% of those with heart failure had COPD [50].

Wheezing and attacks of breathlessness can be associated with allergic inflammation. Allergy has not been associated with coronary disease. No associations were observed between these symptoms and deaths due to the five causes of CV diseases in our study.

Breathlessness on effort without cough and phlegm is in a clinical setting characteristic for emphysema and not chronic obstructive bronchitis, but also of obstructive coronary artery disease as recently shown [43]. Although we have also focused on participants without self-reported cardiac disease, we cannot exclude the possibility of dyspnoea being an expression of undiagnosed CV disease. In a survey CT coronary angiography of an asymptomatic general population in Sweden, more than 5% had a significant coronary stenosis and 2% left main stem or triple vessel obstruction [51]. Dyspnoea may also be a marker of physical deconditioning due to low physical activity levels, which is independently associated with CV outcomes [52].

We initially also analyzed on pulmonary embolism as a cause of death. However, because of few events, changes in diagnostic procedures over time and presumed challenges with validity of the diagnosis, we decided to leave this out of the paper.

Adjustments for confounding factors

It is well known that CV deaths are associated with sex, birth cohort, smoking, occupational exposure to particles, educational level and diagnosis of CV and pulmonary diseases [53,54]. The present study has adjusted for these variables. However, we did not adjust for other known CV risk factors, such as diabetes, obesity, lipids, hypertension, diet, psychological factors, or lung function, which were not available in our study.

The prevalence of breathlessness at a level of effort is higher in women than in men [55], which has been explained by smaller lung volumes in women [56]. The large gender difference in CV mortality has declined during the last 50 years [35], possibly due to interventions of modifiable risk factors in men. Processes related to accelerating ageing are telomere shortening, cell senescence of endothelial cells, diminished cell proliferation and dysfunction of anti-ageing molecules, such as Sirtuin 1. They may play a role in the atherosclerosis and CV deaths [1]. Smoking induces chronic inflammatory responses in susceptible individuals which initiate development and rupture of arteriosclerotic plaques and thus coronary heart disease.

Strengths and limitations

The large number of participants and a long follow up give a large number of person-years at risk and a high statistical power of the study. The reporting of respiratory symptoms on a self-administered questionnaire removed the biased variation caused by interviewers. The associations were observed in never smokers and in persons without known heart diseases at baseline. The recorders of the cause of deaths were unaware of the baseline variables. To our knowledge, no other population-based study has included analysis of so many respiratory symptoms as predictors of mortality from subgroups of CV diseases.

A majority of the self-reported questionnaires are filled out by the invited persons at home. The persons do not need to be capable of attending the survey station, so frail and ill members of the target population do not need to present themselves. However, the prevalence of respiratory symptoms and the reproducibility of the responses tend to vary by smoking habits and educational level, and the prevalence rates may be influenced by small changes in the phrasing of the questionnaire items [27]. This limits the generalization of the findings in our study.

Remissions of respiratory symptoms are, however, frequent [57,58]. A community study in the Netherlands over 43 years showed that remission of dyspnoea normalizes mortality risk [59], which was confirmed in a 45-year follow up study of men in Sweden [48].

A main cause of uncertainty with regard to cause of death is physicians`reporting of diagnosis on death certificates. Since 2005 the national registry of death has used an automatic classification of medical entities (ACME) which reduce the variation between coder [34]. Previous studies of the population in the City of Bergen have shown substantial agreement between mortality statistic and autopsy findings for fatal stroke and coronary deaths. Cohen’s kappa coefficients were 0.78 for stroke and 0.80 for coronary deaths [37].

The 95,705 individuals included in the final analyses represented about 60% of the target population, as we included only individuals with responses to a number of questionnaire items on possible confounding variables. This may be a weakness of the study, as there is a risk that non-participations bias. However, it is hard to delineate how this will impact associations between respiratory symptoms and CV deaths.

A further limitation of our study was the lack of adjustments for potential confounders, as described above. Previous population surveys [48,59] taking body mass index and lung function results into account in Cox proportional hazard regression still show an association between breathlessness and CV death.

Unspecified causes of deaths like other heart diseases and other circulatory diseases were also associated with respiratory symptoms in a dose response matter. The pathogenesis of these groups of diseases can be both inflammatory processes, atherosclerosis with arterial stiffness and aging with telomere shortening, cell senescence of endothelial cells and diminished cell proliferation.

Implications

Recording of respiratory symptoms is simple, cheap and applicable to most people. We have shown that breathlessness on effort are important predictors of early deaths and mortality for all subgroups of CV diseases.

Persons presenting in a primary care with chronic breathless are frequent and has a wide variety of underlying diagnoses, but large groups are airflow obstruction, CV and circulatory diagnosis, obesity and psychogenic disorders. It is important to highlight the need to establish diagnoses in those persons who seek health care and ensure intervention such as increased physical activity, smoking cessation, psychologic guidance, control of other risk factors and medication. A routine pulmonary and CV check-up should be offered persons with moderate and severe breathlessness which include a thorough physical CV-pulmonary examination, blood pressure, spirometry, chest X-ray, ECG, cholesterol, blood sugar, low-density lipoprotein, B-type natriuretic peptide and if necessary, referral to prolonged ECG and blood pressure. measurements, echocardiography, exercise stress test and coronary angiography. Future studies should examine the most effective approach to diagnose and how to treat people with self-reported breathlessness on effort.

Conclusion

Breathlessness on effort was a robust indicator of early deaths of all subgroups of CV diseases. The severity of breathlessness increased the risk for such deaths.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Descriptive statistics for participants at different stages according to response to questionnaires.

(PDF)

S2 Table. Prevalence of baseline respiratory symptoms overall and in never smokers, and according to cardiovascular causes of death.

(PDF)

S3 Table. After exclusion of patients with known heart disease.

Hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals and p-values according to cause of death, multivariable proportional hazards regression analysis adjusted for sex, education, occupational exposure to gas/dust and birth cohort (n = 90,316).

(PDF)

S4 Table. After exclusion of patients with known heart disease or lung disease.

Hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals and p-values according to cause of death, multivariable proportional hazards regression analysis adjusted for sex, education, occupational exposure to gas/dust and birth cohort (n = 72,339).

(PDF)

Data Availability

Data availability: The ethical approval granted by the Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics in Norway does not allow public sharing of the data. A data set can be made available for scientific analysis on request, provided that the respective research institution proofs handling of the data strictly in accordance with ethical regulations (written ethics protocol, full compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki). To ensure full anonymity only the main variables of the final analyses are provided. We confirm that the data file provided constitutes the minimal data set necessary to replicate the findings of our study in their entirety. Data requests can be made to corresponding author Knut Stavem (knut.stavem@medisin.uio.no or data custodian, Haldor Husby (haldor.husby@ahus.no).

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Morgan AD, Zakeri R, Quint JK. Defining the relationship between COPD and CVD: what are the implications for clinical practice? Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2018;12:1753465817750524. Epub 2018/01/23. doi: 10.1177/1753465817750524 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5937157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.McCarthy B, Casey D, Devane D, Murphy K, Murphy E, Lacasse Y. Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(2):Cd003793. Epub 2015/02/24. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003793.pub3 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lee JH, Lee HY, Jang Y, Lee JS, Oh YM, Lee SD, et al. Efficacy of Unsupervised Home-Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2020;15:2297–305. Epub 2020/10/17. doi: 10.2147/COPD.S268683 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7532041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (2022 report). Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease; 2021. Available from: https://goldcopd.org/2022-gold-reports-2/.
  • 5.European Shortlist for Causes of Death, 2012: Eurostat; 2012 [cited 2020]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=LST_NOM_DTL_LINEAR&IntCurrentPage=2&StrNom=COD_2012&StrLanguageCode=EN.
  • 6.Fletcher CM, Elmes PC, Fairbairn AS, Wood CH. The significance of respiratory symptoms and the diagnosis of chronic bronchitis in a working population. Br Med J. 1959;2(5147):257–66. Epub 1959/08/29. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.5147.257 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1990153. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Fletcher C, Peto R, Tinker C, Speizer FE. The natural history of chronic bronchitis and emphysema: an eight-year study of early chronic obstructive lung disease in working men in London. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1976. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Krueger DE, Rogot E, Blackwelder WC, Reid DD. The predictive value of a postal questionnaire on cardio-respiratory symptoms. J Chronic Dis. 1970;23(5):411–21. Epub 1970/11/01. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(70)90025-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Zeiner-Henriksen T. Six year mortality related to cardiorespiratory symptoms and environmental risk factors in a sample of the Norwegian population. J Chronic Dis. 1976;29(1):15–33. Epub 1976/01/01. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(76)90065-5 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Todd GF, Hunt BM, Lambert PM. Four cardiorespiratory symptoms as predictors of mortality. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1978;32(4):267–74. doi: 10.1136/jech.32.4.267 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Krzyzanowski M, Wysocki M. The relation of thirteen-year mortality to ventilatory impairment and other respiratory symptoms: the Cracow Study. Int J Epidemiol. 1986;15(1):56–64. Epub 1986/03/01. doi: 10.1093/ije/15.1.56 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Higgins MW, Keller JB. Predictors of mortality in the adult population of Tecumseh. Arch Environ Health. 1970;21(3):418–24. Epub 1970/09/01. doi: 10.1080/00039896.1970.10667260 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Olofson J, Skoogh BE, Bake B, Svardsudd K. Mortality related to smoking habits, respiratory symptoms and lung function. Eur J Respir Dis. 1987;71(2):69–76. Epub 1987/08/01. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Vestbo J, Knudsen KM, Rasmussen FV. Should we continue using questionnaires on breathlessness in epidemiologic surveys? Am Rev Respir Dis. 1988;137(5):1114–8. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm/137.5.1114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Carpenter L, Beral V, Strachan D, Ebi-Kryston KL, Inskip H. Respiratory symptoms as predictors of 27 year mortality in a representative sample of British adults. BMJ. 1989;299(6695):357–61. doi: 10.1136/bmj.299.6695.357 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ebi-Kryston KL, Hawthorne VM, Rose G, Shipley MJ, Gillis CR, Hole DJ, et al. Breathlessness, chronic bronchitis and reduced pulmonary function as predictors of cardiovascular disease mortality among men in England, Scotland and the United States. Int J Epidemiol. 1989;18(1):84–8. doi: 10.1093/ije/18.1.84 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Jousilahti P, Vartiainen E, Tuomilehto J, Puska P. Symptoms of chronic bronchitis and the risk of coronary disease. Lancet. 1996;348(9027):567–72. Epub 1996/08/31. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)02374-4 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Vestbo J, Knudsen KM, Rasmussen FV. The value of mucus hypersecretion as a predictor of mortality and hospitalization. An 11-year register based follow-up study of a random population sample of 876 men. Respir Med. 1989;83(3):207–11. doi: 10.1016/s0954-6111(89)80033-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Knuiman MW, James AL, Divitini ML, Ryan G, Bartholomew HC, Musk AW. Lung function, respiratory symptoms, and mortality: results from the Busselton Health Study. Ann Epidemiol. 1999;9(5):297–306. Epub 2000/09/08. doi: 10.1016/s1047-2797(98)00066-0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Frostad A, Soyseth V, Haldorsen T, Andersen A, Gulsvik A. Respiratory symptoms and long-term cardiovascular mortality. Respir Med. 2007;101(11):2289–96. Epub 2007/08/08. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2007.06.023 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gulsvik A, Bakke PS, Brogger J, Nielsen R, Stavem K. Respiratory symptoms and mortality in four general population cohorts over 45 years. Respir Med. 2020;170:106060. Epub 2020/08/28. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2020.106060 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Stavem K, Johannessen A, Nielsen R, Gulsvik A. Respiratory symptoms and respiratory deaths: A multi-cohort study with 45 years observation time. PLoS One. 2021;16(11):e0260416. Epub 2021/11/23. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260416 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8608323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Causes of death, 2012: Statistics Norway; [3 may 2022]. Available from: https://www.ssb.no/en/helse/statistikker/dodsarsak/aar/2013-11-01?fane=tabell&sort=nummer&tabell=145833.
  • 24.Gulsvik A, Humerfelt S, Bakke PS, Omenaas ER, Lehmann S. Norwegian population surveys on respiratory health in adults: objectives, design, methods, quality controls and response rates. Clin Respir J. 2008;2 Suppl 1:10–25. Epub 2008/10/01. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-699X.2008.00080.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Eilertsen E, Sulheim O. [Smoking and coronary disease (3). The Bergen Investigation]. Lakartidningen. 1970;67(2):145–9. Epub 1970/01/07. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lahlum E, Ruyter KW. The establishment of ethical committees for medical research. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2012;132(12–13):1486–9. Epub 2012/07/07. doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.12.0311 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Brogger JC, Bakke PS, Gulsvik A. Comparison of respiratory symptoms questionnaires. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2000;4(1):83–90. Epub 2000/02/02. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Gulsvik A, Bakke P, Humerfelt S, Omenaas E, Baste V. Measurements of respiratory symptoms and sample size to detect a given difference between treatment groups in obstructive lung disease. Eur Respir Rev. 1991;(1):436–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bakke P, Gulsvik A, Eide GE, Hanoa R. Smoking habits and lifetime occupational exposure to gases or dusts, including asbestos and quartz, in a Norwegian community. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1990;16(3):195–202. Epub 1990/06/01. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.1794 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gjertsen F. [Cause of death registry—an important data source for medical research]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2002;122(26):2551–4. Epub 2003/01/14. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Alfsen GC, Maehlen J. The value of autopsies for determining the cause of death. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2012;132(2):147–51. Epub 2012/01/27. doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.11.0427 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Vollset SE, Tell GS. Obduksjoner [Autopsies]. In Norwegian. In: Vollset SE, Tell GS, Thelle DS, Tretli S, Tverdal A, Vatten L, editors. Dødelighet og dødsårsaker (in Norwegian). 2012:4. Oslo: Nasjonalt folkehelseinstitutt; 2012. p. 68–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Indicators Explorer. Autopsy rate for all deaths (%) in Norway: World Health Organization, European Region; 2022 [cited 2022 3 sep 2022]. Available from: https://gateway.euro.who.int/en/hfa-explorer/#USmrpBXlVB.
  • 34.Pedersen AG, Ellingsen CL. Data quality in the Causes of Death Registry. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2015;135(8):768–70. Epub 2015/05/08. doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.14.1065 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Vollset SE, Tell GS, Thelle DS, Tretli S, Tverdal A, Vatten L. Dødelighet og dødsårsaker (in Norwegian). Oslo: Nasjonalt folkehelseinstitutt, 2012. 2012:4, ISBN: 978-82-8082-523-0. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Thelle DS, Graff-Iversen S, Langørgen JL. Sykdommer i sirkulasjonsorganene (hjertekarsykdommer) (E33). Dødelighet og dødsårsaker. Oslo: Nasjonalt folkehelseinstitutt; 2012. p. 38–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Gulsvik AK, Gulsvik A, Svendsen E, Maehle BO, Thelle DS, Wyller TB. Diagnostic validity of fatal cerebral strokes and coronary deaths in mortality statistics: an autopsy study. Eur J Epidemiol. 2011;26(3):221–8. Epub 2010/12/21. doi: 10.1007/s10654-010-9535-4 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3079075. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Korn EL, Graubard BI, Midthune D. Time-to-event analysis of longitudinal follow-up of a survey: choice of the time-scale. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;145(1):72–80. Epub 1997/01/01. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009034 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Austin PC. A Tutorial on Multilevel Survival Analysis: Methods, Models and Applications. Int Stat Rev. 2017;85(2):185–203. Epub 2018/01/09. doi: 10.1111/insr.12214 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5756088. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Rosengren A, Wilhelmsen L. Respiratory symptoms and long-term risk of death from cardiovascular disease, cancer and other causes in Swedish men. Int J Epidemiol. 1998;27(6):962–9. Epub 1999/02/19. doi: 10.1093/ije/27.6.962 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Luchian ML, Motoc A, Lochy S, Magne J, Belsack D, De Mey J, et al. Subclinical Myocardial Dysfunction in Patients with Persistent Dyspnea One Year after COVID-19. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021;12(1). Epub 2022/01/22. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12010057 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8775030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Knuuti J, Wijns W, Saraste A, Capodanno D, Barbato E, Funck-Brentano C, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(3):407–77. Epub 2019/09/11. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Juarez-Orozco LE, Saraste A, Capodanno D, Prescott E, Ballo H, Bax JJ, et al. Impact of a decreasing pre-test probability on the performance of diagnostic tests for coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;20(11):1198–207. Epub 2019/04/16. doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jez054 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Diamond GA, Forrester JS. Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary-artery disease. N Engl J Med. 1979;300(24):1350–8. Epub 1979/06/14. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197906143002402 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Patel MR, Peterson ED, Dai D, Brennan JM, Redberg RF, Anderson HV, et al. Low diagnostic yield of elective coronary angiography. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(10):886–95. Epub 2010/03/12. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0907272 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3920593. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Leivseth L, Nilsen TI, Mai XM, Johnsen R, Langhammer A. Lung function and respiratory symptoms in association with mortality: The HUNT Study. COPD. 2014;11(1):59–80. Epub 2013/07/24. doi: 10.3109/15412555.2013.781578 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Santos M, Kitzman DW, Matsushita K, Loehr L, Sueta CA, Shah AM. Prognostic Importance of Dyspnea for Cardiovascular Outcomes and Mortality in Persons without Prevalent Cardiopulmonary Disease: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. PLoS One. 2016;11(10):e0165111. Epub 2016/10/26. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165111 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5079579. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Sandberg J, Engstrom G, Ekstrom M. Breathlessness and incidence of COPD, cardiac events and all-cause mortality: A 44-year follow-up from middle age throughout life. PLoS One. 2019;14(3):e0214083. Epub 2019/03/19. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214083 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6422305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, Bueno H, Cleland JG, Coats AJ, et al. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: The Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016;18(8):891–975. Epub 2016/05/22. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.592 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Melbye H, Stylidis M, Solis JCA, Averina M, Schirmer H. Prediction of chronic heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a general population: the Tromso study. ESC Heart Fail. 2020;7(6):4139–50. Epub 2020/10/08. doi: 10.1002/ehf2.13035 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7754893. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Bergstrom G, Persson M, Adiels M, Bjornson E, Bonander C, Ahlstrom H, et al. Prevalence of Subclinical Coronary Artery Atherosclerosis in the General Population. Circulation. 2021;144(12):916–29. Epub 2021/09/21. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.055340 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8448414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Carlsson AC, Arnlov J, Sundstrom J, Michaelsson K, Byberg L, Lind L. Physical activity, obesity and risk of cardiovascular disease in middle-aged men during a median of 30 years of follow-up. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2016;23(4):359–65. Epub 2015/01/22. doi: 10.1177/2047487314568034 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Carter P, Lagan J, Fortune C, Bhatt DL, Vestbo J, Niven R, et al. Association of Cardiovascular Disease With Respiratory Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(17):2166–77. Epub 2019/03/09. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.11.063 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Yusuf S, Joseph P, Rangarajan S, Islam S, Mente A, Hystad P, et al. Modifiable risk factors, cardiovascular disease, and mortality in 155 722 individuals from 21 high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries (PURE): a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2020;395(10226):795–808. Epub 2019/09/08. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32008-2 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8006904. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Prevalence Gulsvik A. and manifestations of obstructive lung disease in the city of Oslo. Scand J Respir Dis. 1979;60(5):286–96. Epub 1979/10/01. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Ekstrom M, Schioler L, Gronseth R, Johannessen A, Svanes C, Leynaert B, et al. Absolute values of lung function explain the sex difference in breathlessness in the general population. Eur Respir J. 2017;49(5). Epub 2017/05/27. doi: 10.1183/13993003.02047-2016 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Eagan TM, Bakke PS, Eide GE, Gulsvik A. Incidence of asthma and respiratory symptoms by sex, age and smoking in a community study. Eur Respir J. 2002;19(4):599–605. Epub 2002/05/10. doi: 10.1183/09031936.02.00247302 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Eagan TM, Gulsvik A, Eide GE, Bakke PS. Remission of respiratory symptoms by smoking and occupational exposure in a cohort study. Eur Respir J. 2004;23(4):589–94. Epub 2004/04/16. doi: 10.1183/09031936.04.00041204 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Figarska SM, Boezen HM, Vonk JM. Dyspnea severity, changes in dyspnea status and mortality in the general population: the Vlagtwedde/Vlaardingen study. Eur J Epidemiol. 2012;27(11):867–76. Epub 2012/10/12. doi: 10.1007/s10654-012-9736-0 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3501159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Kjell Torén

7 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-14710Respiratory symptoms and cardiovascular causes of deaths: a population-based study with 45 years of follow-upPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Knut Stavem!

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. I have with great interest read your manuscript. Before we can make a final decision about its future, there are certain revisions that has to be made.

I think the aim is relevant – to determine whether respiratory symptoms increase the mortality (risk) of different cardiovascular diseases. Keep the manuscript to that aim!! Delete all the primary analyses regarding SES, occupational exposures, education, etc., etc. They are also of interest, of course, but in another paper. But of course, keep them as potential confounders, but do not present primary mortality estimates

The table are too many, and difficult to interpret. If you skip the primary analysis of the confounders (and just mention that the analyses are adjusted for occupation, etc, etc), then you can merge some of the tables.

The manuscript has also been read by three experienced referees. Their comments are attached, and I wish that you reply point-by-point to their comments and to my comments above.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 21 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kjell Torén, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The aim of the study was to determine the association between respiratory symptoms and death from cardiovascular (CV) during 45 years follow-up in a pooled sample of four Norwegian cohorts including 95,704 participants. Assessing CV deaths and breathlessness is considered relevant to assess the relationship between this common symptom and one of the main causes for death in the general population. The paper is well written and considered to be accessible also for non-specialists. The paper presents interesting findings, and is considered suitable for publication after a minor revision. Please consider the suggestions listed below each section:

Abstract:

Line 3: Consider to replace the word causes with diseases in this sentence to be more clear.

Line 6 : Add “by using”: cardiovascular deaths by using Cox regression analysis……

Line 25 Please consider rephrasing the abstract conclusion to be even more precise. If I am not mistaken the study did not assess if breathlessness is an early marker of CV deaths, but whether breathlessness is associated with CV deaths (as stated in the aim). Alternatively, consider stating state: Breathlessness could be an early marker of CV deaths? (or similar).

Overall: Please omit the space between number and %: 18% instead of 18 %.

Introduction:

The aim is properly placed in the context of the previous literature, which is presented well. The data analyses are considered to support the claims. There does not seem to be a need for detailed protocols and algorithms as supporting information online.

Line 45: Please provide a reference for this statement.

Line 57: should this be CV deaths?

Line 62: consider writing: that were not adjusted for…

Methods:

The details of the methodology are considered to be sufficient to allow the experiments to be reproduced. Nevertheless authors are encouraged to include some brief information in the manuscript regarding the follow-up time, although a reference (19) is provided. Information is included in the follow-up and census data section, but what was the range or the shortest follow-up time?

Results:

The results and tables are well presented and easy to understand for the reader.

Line 229: please omit the bracket after word sex.

Line 234: please consider commenting this finding in the discussion. Could it be due to a healthy worker effect?

Line 245: should this sentence read: myocardial infraction declined with increasing score of breathlessness and wheeze?

Line 258: Please state the direction of this association (higher education seems to be protective).

Line 287: Please insert “was” and “stratified analyses”: lung embolism was excluded in the stratified analyses due to few persons.

Line 296: same as above.

Line 300 to 302: Please consider rephrasing this sentence as it is a bit difficult to understand.

Line 308: Please consider defining early death.

Discussion:

The discussion is balanced and well written, please find some minor suggestions below

Line 361: insert the word “were”: The respiratory

questions were more or less identical to those in the present study.

Line 373: should this read: previous cardiopulmonary disease?

Line 384: sample size of that study?

Line 398: Please consider replacing “are” with “is”: a causal verification is lacking.

Line 403: Replace “have” with “has”.

Line 417: is a reference missing here”?

Line 438-439 The meaning of this sentence: “However, the variability of response…” is not quite clear, please adjust.

An original data deposited in not made available in repositories due to ethical limitations placed by the Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics in Norway. A minimal data set can be made available for scientific analysis on request, provided that the respective research institution proofs handling of the data strictly in accordance with ethical regulations (written ethics protocol, full compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki).

The study seems to conform well with the STROBE guidelines.

Reviewer #2: Comments to authors.

Thank you for a good manuscript and an exciting study. Research with this type of data is very much needed. The topic is a relevant addition to the existing literature with an impressive amount of data and studied participants giving great strength to the study!

I have some questions about the article:

The authors should consider some language review since the grammar is questionable throughout the manuscript.

Other main areas of concern are considering the tables, which are too large, not self-explanatory and include too much information with limited value (the “other” headings and more). More information is needed concerning the scales used.

1. Abstract:

p2 row 6: insert the word “using”. …using cox analysis

2. Information is needed in the abstract about what scale has been used for assessing breathlessness that has been used (maybe on row 5). (an adaption of the mMRC). As it is now, it is unclear what score three and score two mean. Rows 14-24 are a little vague.

Introduction

1. P4 row 46

2. Should write chronic obstructive pulmonary disease instead of lung disease?

3. Row 50 “No studies are available of studies of” … , strange language.

Methods results and discussion:

1) The section about the study population is hard to follow and understand. Could it be clearer to use some flow diagram or graphic?

2) I need more information concerning the scale used to assess breathlessness. The question asked is vital to interpreting the results. My suggestion is that the table presented in the supplementary material should be included in the manuscript.

3) It is hard to find more thorough information on the “Norwegian respiratory questionnaire” online or elsewhere; the cited sources do not really give any more information. Especially citation 24. However, some information can be found in citation 22. However, this manuscript would benefit from a more comprehensive description of the questionnaires since the symptom questions are the backbone of this study.

4) I lack information on how many were lost to follow-up? ( it is said that 231 emigrated without any available date, but how many were lost all in all? ).

5) More information is needed in the manuscript concerning establishing the cause of death. A smaller section is found in the discussion, but the information is also required in the methods section. (see also points 6-9)

6) What is the validity of the registry of causes of death in this setting? How are they obtained? (through autopsy or clinically only?) Has any previous study examined the agreement between the registered cause of death and the “real” cause? (information needed in the methods section and not only in the discussion)

7) Starting on row 338, the authors discuss pulmonary embolism as a cause of death; it seems like the authors had expected more cases. But what would an expected number of deaths attributed to pulmonary embolism be? How common should death from PE be in an average population? The authors argue that better diagnostics would potentially lead to a higher number, but at the same time argue that the causes of death registry are reliable. Suppose the causes of death are not established by autopsy. In that case, it is plausible that most actual pulmonary embolisms would be categorised as something else (perhaps as a myocardial infarction) by the clinician responsible for the death certificate. This finding then raises concerns about the actual reliability of the causes of the death registry in Norway and then also raises concerns about the outcome variables in this study.

8) Should pulmonary embolism be removed and only mentioned briefly in the text? I do not find that it gives that much important information as it is now – mainly since cases are very few and there are questions concerning its validity.

9) It is unclear if only one cause of death was used in this material? Were secondary or tertiary causes of death available? How was the leading cause of death established? If several simultaneous reasons were present, how was this handled?

In my view, myocardial infarction is often stated as the primary cause of death even when there is no known cause; the actual underlying condition is often more interesting but is often expressed as a secondary or tertiary cause of death. This would jeopardise the reliability of the outcomes. For example, if an individual with severe pulmonary neoplasm in palliative care ultimately died from a cardiovascular condition, wouldn’t the pulmonary neoplasm be the most relevant cause of death? Any thoughts about how this was handled?

10) On the same note, even though this study focuses on cardiovascular disease, it would be interesting to see the proportions of different causes of death in the population. Was cardiovascular disease prevalent in an expected ratio of all deaths?

11) It is unclear to me how adjustments were handled and selected. Were all factors really adjusted for the same variables? As this is a very complex analysis, it is plausible that there is a complex interplay between different factors that could include confounding effects on the analyses. Performing a structured analysis of possible confounders could be of great importance. (such as http://www.dagitty.net/ ). There is a considerable risk that confounders could influence these results, which should be addressed thoroughly. More information on the adjustments is needed within the tables, preferably so that one can see precisely which factors are adjusted for what.

12) Could results be visualised better? Kaplan Mayer or cumulative incidence curves?

13) More work is needed with the tables; they are too large, a lot of information is lacking, and I believe they include too much information. (see my points 13-16 for details)

14) More information is needed within the tables (such as explanations of abbreviations, headings, detailed information on adjustments etc.). The tables are also too large. The tables should stand on their own. As it is now, the reader must always refer to the text to understand the different headings.

15) I am not sure that the headings “other heart”, “other vascular”, and “other ischemic” are needed within the tables. The valuable information from such categories is limited, and I suggest that these are removed with the added benefit of more readable tables. Then there is no need to specify the different headings within the table, which I believe is otherwise needed. The “other” headings are not even referred to in the text. Some explanation on why these are included and what information the authors believe they can get from them is needed in case they are not removed.

16) What are “myocardial infarction – yes/no” and “other heart disease yes/no” as stated in the tables? Is it a previous myocardial infarction/heart disease? What is the value of having these added to the tables?

17) Could educational level be dichotomised in some way to merge the categories?

18) The row “Total” in table 3 is strange. What is meant by this? Is there not a total score for each of the objects within the table – then why choose to include only one? My suggestion is to remove it.

19) Row 389-399: Interesting discussion, but it seems these rows would be better in another section of the manuscript, perhaps below “Main findings” instead, as these are discussed.

Reviewer #3: Dear Editor,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript: ” Respiratory symptoms and cardiovascular causes of deaths: a population-based study with 45 years of follow-up” by Knut Stavem et al.

The manuscript is well written and discusses an important question on breathlessness symptoms and risk for CVD - death in a large population. These symptoms are very frequent in clinic and these results emphasize the importance of investigation of the causes of breathlessness.

There are some concerns as follows:

In methods: There is a large number of individuals that weren't included in the final analyses. A drop from 158702 individuals to final 95704 was registered. Possible impact of this drop-out should be discussed as a weakness in this study. Moreover, the lack of information on diseases increasing risk for cvd-death as diabetes, and hypertension is also a weakness with this study not mentioned by authors.

The start of the observation: It is not clear to me why the authors didn’t choose the date of filling or left questionnaires for start date of the observation

It is not quite clear what were the procedures in the inclusion for each cohort and whether the questionnaires were filled home or in situ in the study center? Did they have any visit or help on filling in the questionnaires? This should be stated in the methods.

Results: In general, the results are somehow difficult to follow because of the amount of information and tables. The authors should consider concentrating on results important on answering the research question and in specific breathlessness and cvd-mortality. Some of the tables can be part of supplementary material including table 7 and 8.

In Table 7, it is difficult to understand how many events there are in each strata. I suggest a column with information on event for each row.

Discussion: End of the first paragraph” The associations increased with the severity of breathlessness, and the pattern of associations was similar in women and in never smokers”- This is not true as in most of the analyses it wasn’t shown that having 4 symptoms was associated with higher risk. Consider re-writing that.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Anne Kristin M. Fell

Senior physician, Associate Professor

Dep. of Occupational and Environmental Health, Telemark Hospital, Skien

Dep. of Community Medicine and Global Health, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo

Norway

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 1

Kjell Torén

10 Oct 2022

Respiratory symptoms and cardiovascular causes of deaths: a population-based study with 45 years of follow-up

PONE-D-22-14710R1

Dear Dr. Stavem,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Kjell Torén, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Acceptance letter

Kjell Torén

12 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-14710R1

Respiratory symptoms and cardiovascular causes of deaths: a population-based study with 45 years of follow-up

Dear Dr. Stavem:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Kjell Torén

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Descriptive statistics for participants at different stages according to response to questionnaires.

    (PDF)

    S2 Table. Prevalence of baseline respiratory symptoms overall and in never smokers, and according to cardiovascular causes of death.

    (PDF)

    S3 Table. After exclusion of patients with known heart disease.

    Hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals and p-values according to cause of death, multivariable proportional hazards regression analysis adjusted for sex, education, occupational exposure to gas/dust and birth cohort (n = 90,316).

    (PDF)

    S4 Table. After exclusion of patients with known heart disease or lung disease.

    Hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals and p-values according to cause of death, multivariable proportional hazards regression analysis adjusted for sex, education, occupational exposure to gas/dust and birth cohort (n = 72,339).

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 26sep2022_response_to_reviewers_pone_v2.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data availability: The ethical approval granted by the Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics in Norway does not allow public sharing of the data. A data set can be made available for scientific analysis on request, provided that the respective research institution proofs handling of the data strictly in accordance with ethical regulations (written ethics protocol, full compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki). To ensure full anonymity only the main variables of the final analyses are provided. We confirm that the data file provided constitutes the minimal data set necessary to replicate the findings of our study in their entirety. Data requests can be made to corresponding author Knut Stavem (knut.stavem@medisin.uio.no or data custodian, Haldor Husby (haldor.husby@ahus.no).


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES