BackgroundMajor depression (MD) is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Reduced heart rate variability (HRV) has been observed in MD. Given the predictive value of HRV for cardiovascular health, reduced HRV might be one physiological factor that mediates this association.MethodsThe purpose of this study was to provide up-to-date random-effects meta-analyses of studies which compare resting-state measures of HRV between unmedicated adults with MD and controls. Database search considered English and German literature to July 2018.ResultsA total of 21 studies including 2250 patients and 1982 controls were extracted. Significant differences between patients and controls were found for (i) frequency domains such as HF-HRV [Hedges' g = −0.318; 95% CI (−0.388 to −0.247)], LF-HRV (Hedges' g = −0.195; 95% CI (−0.332 to −0.059)], LF/HF-HRV (Hedges' g = 0.195; 95% CI (0.086–0.303)] and VLF-HRV (Hedges' g = −0.096; 95% CI (−0.179 to −0.013)), and for (ii) time-domains such as IBI (Hedges' g = −0.163; 95% CI (−0.304 to −0.022)], RMSSD (Hedges' g = −0.462; 95% CI (−0.612 to −0.312)] and SDNN (Hedges' g = −0.266; 95% CI (−0.431 to −0.100)].ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate that all HRV-measures were lower in MD than in healthy controls and thus strengthens evidence for lower HRV as a potential cardiovascular risk factor in these patients.
SSS is a comprehensive measure of one's social position that is related to several poor health outcomes and risk factors for disease. Future investigation, particularly prospective studies, should extend research on SSS and health to further countries/ethnic groups, also considering additional psychological and biological mediators and dynamic aspects of SSS. Recently developed experimental approaches to manipulate SSS may also be promising.
Background: Preoperative anxiety comprising anesthesia and surgery related anxiety is common and perceived by many patients as the worst aspect of the surgical episode. The aim of this study was to identify independent predictors of these three anxieties dimensions and to quantify the relevance of specific fears particularly associated with anesthesia. Methods: This study was part of a cross-sectional survey in patients scheduled to undergo elective surgery. Anxiety levels were measured with the Amsterdam Preoperative Anxiety and Information Scale (APAIS). Modified numeric rating scales (mNRS, range 0-10) were used to assess the severity of eight selected specific fears which were predominantly analyzed descriptively. Multivariate stepwise linear regression was applied to determine independent predictors of all three anxiety dimensions (APAIS anxiety subscales). Results: 3087 of the 3200 enrolled patients were analyzed. Mean (SD) total preoperative anxiety (APAIS-AT , range 4-20) was 9.9 (3.6). High anxiety (APAIS-AT > 10) was reported by 40.5% of subjects. Mean (SD) levels of concern regarding the eight studied specific fears ranged from 3.9 (3.08) concerning "Anesthesiologist error" to 2.4 (2.29) concerning "Fatigue and drowsiness" with an average of 3.2 (2.84) concerning all specific fears. Ranking of all specific fears according to mean mNRS scores was almost identical in patients with high versus those with low anxiety. Among nine independent predictors of anxiety, only 3 variables (female gender, negative and positive anesthetic experience) independently predicted all three APAIS anxiety subscales. Other variables had a selective impact on one or two APAIS anxiety subscales only. Female gender had the strongest impact on all three APAIS anxiety subscales. Adjusted r 2 values of the three models were all below 13%. Conclusions: The high variability of importance assigned to all specific fears suggests an individualized approach is advisable when support of anxious patients is intended. Considering independent predictors of anxiety to estimate each patient's anxiety level is of limited use given the very low predictive capacity of all three models. The clinical benefit of dividing patients into those with high and low anxiety is questionable.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.