Election Stress Raises Arrhythmia And Heart Attack Risk In Studies Around U.S. Voting

Elections may not just polarize voters; they may also stress the cardiovascular system in ways that show up in real-world health data. STAT reported that studies have found a significantly higher chance of arrhythmias in the weeks just before and after elections, along with an increased rate of hospitalizations for heart attacks right after voting day.

The reporting centers on two retrospective studies that point in the same direction without establishing cause and effect. Their shared conclusion is narrower than a broad public-health alarm but still material: for some people, especially those with cardiovascular vulnerability, election-related stress may be enough to trigger clinically meaningful events.

The Data

Lindsey Rosman, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of cardiology at Northwestern University, studied people who already had a heart rhythm disorder using data from their implanted cardiac devices. Her team found a 77% higher rate of irregular heartbeats during the six weeks around the 2016 election compared with a control period.

STAT said the arrhythmia pattern was similar across age, sex, race, and other health conditions, and that Democrats and Republicans had similar risk. The study was retrospective and observational, and it was carried out in North Carolina, where Rosman had been at the University of North Carolina. Because North Carolina was a swing state in 2016, residents experienced especially heavy exposure to political advertising and campaign events.

A separate retrospective cohort study by Matthew Mefford, a cardiovascular disease epidemiologist and research scientist at Kaiser Permanente Southern California, looked at whether acute cardiovascular hospitalizations increased immediately after Election Day following the 2020 presidential election. According to STAT, the rate of heart attacks was significantly higher in the five-day period after the election than in the same five-day period two weeks before. The study included people with and without a history of heart disease.

What The Studies Do And Do Not Show

Both researchers emphasized that the findings are associative, not proof that elections directly cause arrhythmias or heart attacks. Mefford told STAT that stress comes in many forms, including both positive and negative, and that election stress is only one situation that can result in adverse heart outcomes. He also noted that not everyone responds to stress in the same way or to the same magnitude that triggers a heart event.

Rosman explained the biological pathway in conventional stress terms. Acute stress and anger can trigger a fight-or-flight response, raising adrenaline, increasing sympathetic nervous system activity, and reducing the calming influence of the vagus nerve. In people already prone to rhythm problems, those changes can alter the heart’s electrical activity and make abnormal rhythms more likely. STAT also noted potential roles for inflammation, cortisol, and stress-related behaviors such as poor sleep, skipped medications, eating more foods high in fat or salt, or drinking more alcohol or caffeine.

The Broader Signal

The policy-relevant takeaway is not that elections are a unique cardiac threat, but that they may belong in the same category as other acute stress events that can destabilize vulnerable patients. Rosman cited reports of more heart attacks and cardiac events after 9/11, earthquakes, and World Cup matches, while also noting that chronic stress is an established risk factor for heart disease over time.

That framing matters because nearly half of U.S. adults have some type of cardiovascular disease, including high blood pressure, according to the source. If divisive election cycles can temporarily elevate risk across party lines, the health burden is not confined to a small political subgroup. Rosman also suggested that today’s exposure may be magnified beyond political ads by the saturation of social media, a factor that could make future election-related stress harder to avoid.

Rosman’s next step is to use wearables to study acute stress events, and she hopes a larger nationwide follow-up study covering the 2020 and 2024 elections will yield answers before the next U.S. presidential election.