Search

Background Psychological distress has a negative impact on the prognosis and quality of life for patients with heart failure. We investigated the association between psychological distress and the patients’ adherence to medical treatment (medication adherence) and self-care advice (lifestyle adherence) in heart failure. We further examined whether there are different factors associated with low medication compared to low lifestyle adherence. Method This secondary analysis of the RECODE-HF cohort study analyzed baseline data of 3099 primary care heart failure patients aged 74 ± 10 years, 44.5 % female. Using multivariable regression, factors relating to medication and lifestyle adherence were investigated in order to estimate the extent to which these factors confound the association between psychological distress and adherence. Results Psychological distress was significantly associated with poorer medication adherence but not with lifestyle adherence after controlling for confounders. We identified different factors associated with medication compared to lifestyle adherence. A higher body mass index, a less developed social network, living alone, fewer chronic co-morbidities and unawareness of the heart failure diagnosis were only related to lower lifestyle adherence. Higher education was associated with poorer medication adherence. Male sex, younger age, lower self-efficacy and less familiar relation with the general practitioner were common factors associated with both lower medication and lifestyle adherence. Conclusion Promising factors for increasing medication adherence (reduction of psychological distress) and lifestyle adherence (explaining the patient his/her heart failure diagnosis more than once and increase in the patients’ self-efficacy), which were found in this cross-sectional study, must be further investigated in longitudinal studies.

Background: Risk factor control is essential in limiting the progression of coronary heart disease, but the necessary active patient involvement is often difficult to realise, especially in patients suffering psychosocial risk factors (e.g. distress). Blended collaborative care has been shown as an effective treatment addition, in which a (non-physician) care manager supports patients in implementing and sustaining lifestyle changes, follows-up on patients, and integrates care across providers, targeting both, somatic and psychosocial risk factors. Aims: The aim of this study was to test the feasibility, acceptance and effect of a six-month blended collaborative care intervention in Germany. Methods: For our randomised controlled pilot study with a crossover design we recruited coronary heart disease patients with ⩾1 insufficiently controlled cardiac risk factors and randomised them to either immediate blended collaborative care intervention (immediate intervention group, n=20) or waiting control (waiting control group, n=20). Results: Participation rate in the intervention phase was 67% ( n=40), and participants reported high satisfaction ( M=1.63, standard deviation=0.69; scale 1 (very high) to 5 (very low)). The number of risk factors decreased significantly from baseline to six months in the immediate intervention group ( t(60)=3.07, p=0.003), but not in the waiting control group t(60)=−0.29, p=0.77). Similarly, at the end of their intervention following the six-month waiting period, the waiting control group also showed a significant reduction of risk factors ( t(60)=3.88, pConclusion: This study shows that blended collaborative care can be a feasible, accepted and effective addition to standard medical care in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in the German healthcare system.

Objective The purpose of this study was the diagnostic evaluation of the hospital anxiety and depression scale total score, its depression subscale and the Beck depression inventory II in adults with congenital heart disease. Methods This cross-sectional study evaluated 206 patients with congenital heart disease (mean age 35.3 ± 11.7 years; 58.3% men). Major depressive disorder was diagnosed by a structured clinical interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV and disease severity with the Montgomery–Åsberg depression rating scale. Receiver operating characteristics provided assessment of diagnostic accuracy. Youden’s J statistic identified optimal cut-off points. Results Fifty-three participants (25.7%) presented with major depressive disorder. Of these, 28 (52.8%) had mild and 25 (47.2%) had moderate to severe symptoms. In the total cohort, the optimal cut-off of values was >11 in the Beck depression inventory II, >11 in the hospital anxiety and depression scale and >5 in the depression subscale. Optimal cut-off points for moderate to severe major depressive disorder were similar. The cut-offs for mild major depressive disorder were lower (Beck depression inventory II >4; hospital anxiety and depression scale >8; >2 in its depression subscale). In the total cohort the calculated area under the curve varied between 0.906 (hospital anxiety and depression scale) and 0.93 (Beck depression inventory II). Detection of moderate to severe major depressive disorder (area under the curve 0.965–0.98) was excellent; detection of mild major depressive disorder (area under the curve 0.851–0.885) was limited. Patients with major depressive disorder had a significantly lower quality of life, even when they had mild symptoms. Conclusion All scales were excellent for detecting moderate to severe major depressive disorder. Classification of mild major depressive disorder, representing 50% of cases, was limited. Therapy necessitating loss of quality of life is already present in major depressive disorder with mild symptoms. Established cut-off points may still be too high to identify patients with major depressive disorder requiring therapy. External validation is needed to confirm our data.

Previous studies in post-myocardial infarction patients with heart failure have documented that high anxiety levels are associated with increased mortality. In this prospective study, we determined the impact of anxiety on long-term event risk in stable coronary heart disease (CHD) patients treated with percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs).A total of 470 patients referred for PCI completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) before undergoing stent implantation. Over a five-year follow-up period, data on survival, occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and repeat revascularization were obtained from n = 462 participants (98.3%).All-cause mortality rates differed significantly across the four quartiles of the HADS anxiety subscale, the lowest number of deaths (1.9%) being seen in patients with the highest HADS-A quartile (scores ≥ 10) as compared to those in the three lower quartiles (11.8%, odds ratio = 0.14, 95%-confidence interval (95% CI): 0.03-0.60, p = 0.002). Cox regression models adjusted for a variety of potential somatic and procedural confounders confirmed the results from the univariate analyses (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.05-0.91, p = 0.037). There were also fewer MACEs in anxious patients as compared to non-anxious subjects (HR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.14-0.80, p = 0.014). In contrast, anxious patients had a higher rate of repeat revascularization (26.4% versus 16.6%, p = 0.033).In CHD patients undergoing elective PCI, higher anxiety levels are positively associated with survival and reduce the risk for MACE during the first five years after index PCI. The beneficial effects of anxiety on cardiovascular mortality and morbidity suggest that a differentiated approach to diagnosing and treating anxiety in CHD patients is warranted.

Other experts who contributed to parts of the guidelines: Edmond Walma, Schoonhoven (The Netherlands), Tony Fitzgerald, Dublin (Ireland), Marie Therese Cooney, Dublin (Ireland), Alexandra Dudina, Dublin (Ireland) European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG):, Alec Vahanian (Chairperson) (France), John Camm (UK), Raffaele De Caterina (Italy), Veronica Dean (France), Kenneth Dickstein (Norway), Christian Funck-Brentano (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), Irene Hellemans (The Netherlands), Steen Dalby Kristensen (Denmark), Keith McGregor (France), Udo Sechtem (Germany), Sigmund Silber (Germany), Michal Tendera (Poland), Petr Widimsky (Czech Republic), José Luis Zamorano (Spain) Document reviewers: Irene Hellemans (CPG Review Coordinator) (The Netherlands), Attila Altiner (Germany), Enzo Bonora (Italy), Paul N. Durrington (UK), Robert Fagard (Belgium), Simona Giampaoli(Italy), Harry Hemingway (UK), Jan Hakansson (Sweden), Sverre Erik Kjeldsen (Norway), Mogens Lytken Larsen (Denmark), Giuseppe Mancia (Italy), Athanasios J. Manolis (Greece), Kristina Orth-Gomer (Sweden), Terje Pedersen (Norway), Mike Rayner (UK), Lars Ryden (Sweden), Mario Sammut (Malta), Neil Schneiderman (USA), Anton F. Stalenhoef (The Netherlands), Lale Tokgözoglu (Turkey), Olov Wiklund (Sweden), Antonis Zampelas (Greece)

Psychosocial risk factors like low socio-economic status, chronic family or work stress, social isolation, negative emotions (e.g., chronic depression or acute anxiety), and negative personality patterns such as Type-D-pattern or hostility, may contribute significantly to the development and adverse outcome of coronary heart disease. Therefore, systematic screening for psychosocial risk factors in cardiological practice is recommended in order to initiate adequate intervention strategies, e.g., to involve additional psychosocial counselling or treatment. Reliable methods to assess psychosocial risk factors are: (1) standardized, structured interviews; (2) standardized questionnaires, and (3) 'single-item' questions to be included into the cardiologists' clinical interviews. While structured interviews should be restricted to trained professionals, questionnaires are easily to administer, and have frequently been used in the field of cardiology. 'Single item' questions are sufficiently reliable and the most timesaving way to screen for psychosocial factors. For clinical practice, a two-step evaluation is recommended: firstly, cardiologists should include 'single-item' questions into their routine interview and/or use questionnaires in order to screen for a potential problem. Secondly, if problems are indicated, patients should be passed to qualified professionals for structured clinical interview. Instruments of all three methods are briefly presented, and implications for further treatment are discussed.

Other experts who contributed to parts of the guidelines: Edmond Walma, Schoonhoven (The Netherlands), Tony Fitzgerald, Dublin (Ireland), Marie Therese Cooney, Dublin (Ireland), Alexandra Dudina, Dublin (Ireland) European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG):, Alec Vahanian (Chairperson) (France), John Camm (UK), Raffaele De Caterina (Italy), Veronica Dean (France), Kenneth Dickstein (Norway), Christian Funck-Brentano (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), Irene Hellemans (The Netherlands), Steen Dalby Kristensen (Denmark), Keith McGregor (France), Udo Sechtem (Germany), Sigmund Silber (Germany), Michal Tendera (Poland), Petr Widimsky (Czech Republic), Jose Luis Zamorano (Spain)Document reviewers: Irene Hellemans (CPG Review Coordinator) (The Netherlands), Attila Altiner (Germany), Enzo Bonora (Italy), Paul N. Durrington (UK), Robert Fagard (Belgium), Simona Giampaoli(Italy), Harry Hemingway (UK), Jan Hakansson (Sweden), Sverre Erik Kjeldsen (Norway), Mogens Lytken Larsen ...