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.

IMPORTANCEAdverse events (AEs) after placebo treatment are common in randomized clinical drug trials. Systematic evidence regarding these nocebo responses in vaccine trials is important for COVID-19 vaccination worldwide especially because concern about AEs is reported to be a reason for vaccination hesitancy. OBJECTIVE To compare the frequencies of AEs reported in the placebo groups of COVID-19 vaccine trials with those reported in the vaccine groups. DATA SOURCES For this systematic review and meta-analysis, the Medline (PubMed) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched systematically using medical subheading terms and free-text keywords for trials of COVID-19 vaccines published up to July 14, 2021. STUDY SELECTION Randomized clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines that investigated adults aged 16 years or older were selected if they assessed solicited AEs within 7 days of injection, included an inert placebo arm, and provided AE reports for both the vaccine and placebo groups separately. Full texts were reviewed for eligibility by 2 independent reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by 2 reviewers, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline and using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Meta-analyses were based on random-effects models. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcomes were the proportions of placebo recipients reporting overall, systemic, and local (injection-site) AEs as well as logarithmic odds ratios (ORs) to evaluate group differences. Outcomes were tested for significance using z tests with 95% CIs. RESULTSTwelve articles with AE reports for 45 380 participants (22 578 placebo recipients and 22 802 vaccine recipients) were analyzed. After the first dose, 35.2% (95% CI, 26.7%-43.7%) of placebo recipients experienced systemic AEs, with headache (19.3%; 95% CI, 13.6%-25.1%) and fatigue (16.7%; 95% CI, 9.8%-23.6%) being most common. After the second dose, 31.8% (95% CI, 28.7%-35.0%) of placebo recipients reported systemic AEs. The ratio between placebo and vaccine arms showed that nocebo responses accounted for 76.0% of systemic AEs after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose and for 51.8% after the second dose. Significantly more vaccine recipients reported AEs, but the group difference for systemic AEs was small after the first dose

Purpose of Review To review the current state of preoperative psychological preparation to improve outcomes after cardiac surgery. Recent Findings Preoperative psychosocial factors are associated with short- and long-term outcomes after cardiac surgery. There are several approaches to optimize patients’ preoperative psychological status with promising effects on postoperative outcomes (e.g., less complications, improved quality of life). Preoperative psychological preparation often aims to improve patients’ knowledge or social support and to modify and optimize expectations and illness beliefs. Summary Preoperative psychological preparation is gaining importance for cardiac surgery. However, patients’ psychological status still does not get as much attention as it deserves. Preoperative psychological preparation seems to have positive effects on postoperative outcomes. Since overall evidence is still weak, further studies are warranted to understand which intervention works best for whom and why.

Positive framing was partially effective in decreasing specific side effect measures, particularly among participants with a tendency to believe that medicine is harmful. Informed consent procedures should therefore be personalized, focusing on patients with negative treatment beliefs.

No abstract