Cannabis use was associated with higher odds of reporting a history of cardiovascular disease, particularly stroke, in preliminary research released by the American Heart Association on November 2. The findings come from a survey analysis, not a trial establishing that cannabis causes strokes.
The work is scheduled for presentation at the association’s Scientific Sessions in Chicago, November 6–9. It is a conference abstract, not a peer-reviewed full paper. Study author Aabha Divya is an assistant professor at Tulane University School of Medicine.
Researchers analysed responses from 442,906 US adults in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System between 2020 and 2024. Participants reported their recent cannabis use and whether a health professional had previously diagnosed cardiovascular conditions. Only jurisdictions using the survey’s optional cannabis questions were included.
According to the American Heart Association’s release, use on one to five days per month was associated with 40% higher odds of reporting a stroke history than no recent use. For use on 16–30 days, the corresponding figure was 25%.
Those percentages are not percentage-point increases in the probability of a stroke. Nor do they mean 40% of occasional users had strokes. The outcome was a reported history of stroke, not new strokes observed after participants began using cannabis.
For cardiovascular disease overall, the reported odds were 23% higher in the low-frequency group and 21% higher in the heavy-use group. The analysis found no statistically significant association between use frequency and heart attack. That finding does not establish that cannabis is harmless to the heart.
The American Journal of Managed Care’s coverage notes that the release provided neither confidence intervals nor results for the moderate-frequency group. Without those details, readers cannot assess the precision of the headline estimates or reconstruct a complete frequency-response pattern.
The survey also cannot settle which came first: cannabis use or cardiovascular illness. Participants could have changed their use after a diagnosis. Self-reported histories, missing information on product potency and quantity, and incomplete geographic coverage further limit interpretation.
The larger estimate among occasional users is therefore not evidence that heavier use offers protection. These group comparisons do not identify a safe dose, establish equal risks across different products or predict an individual patient’s outcome.
The researchers’ practical recommendation is to include cannabis use in discussions about cardiovascular health. The finding is a reason for an informed conversation with a healthcare professional—not a diagnosis or proof of a causal relationship.
