Rotating Night Shifts Tied to Heart Disease Risk

Chance of trouble is up to 27 percent higher in some nurses

A tired nurse.

Photo By BSIP/UIG Via Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

By Andrew M. Seaman

(Reuters Health) - People who occasionally work night shifts may be at a slightly increased risk of heart disease, according to a new study.

Nurses in the study who worked at least three nights per month were more likely to develop heart problems over the next 24 years than nurses who stuck to daytime shifts.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"It's an important message because it's a potentially modifiable risk factor," said lead author Celine Vetter, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.

For the new study, Vetter and her colleagues used data from more than 189,000 women. About 40 percent were participating in the Nurses' Health Study (NHS), which began in 1988. The others were in NHS2, which began in 1989.

The women entered the studies between the ages of 25 and 55. At the start, none of them had coronary heart disease (CHD).

NHS participants were only asked once about their history of working night shifts, but NHS2 participants were surveyed about night shifts every two years.

During the follow-up period, there were 7,303 cases of CHD in the NHS study and 3,519 cases in the NHS2.

Overall, the risk went up with the number of years women spent covering night shifts, the researchers reported April 26 online in JAMA.

Compared to the risk for nurses in NHS2 who didn't work night shifts, the risk of coronary heart disease was 12% higher in nurses who worked night shifts for less than five years, 19% higher in those who worked night shifts for five to nine years, and 27% higher in nurses who worked nights for at least 10 years.

But the risk of coronary heart disease came back down as women quit working night shifts or retired, the researchers found.

For example, women in NHS with at least 10 years of rotating night shifts had a 27% increased risk of coronary heart disease during the first half of the follow-up period, but only a 10% increased risk during the second half.

The study can't explain the association, but Vetter said it could be related to increased inflammation in the body and social disruption. She also said the findings may apply to people who work early morning shifts since they have to get up during the night.

Once researchers have more data, Vetter said, they will be able to design healthy work schedules.

"Hopefully we can design schedules that are healthier for the individual," she said.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe