41
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Depression and Coronary Heart Disease

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Circulation, 118(17), 1768-1775

          Related collections

          Most cited references 59

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Epidemiology of women and depression.

           R Kessler (2003)
          Depression is the leading cause of disease-related disability among women in the world today. Depression is much more common among women than men, with female/male risk ratios roughly 2:1. Recent epidemiological research is reviewed. Implications are suggested for needed future research. The higher prevalence of depression among women than men is due to higher risk of first onset, not to differential persistence or recurrence. Although the gender difference first emerges in puberty, other experiences related to changes in sex hormones (pregnancy, menopause, use of oral contraceptives, and use of hormone replacement therapy) do not significantly influence major depression. These observations suggest that the key to understanding the higher rates of depression among women than men lies in an investigation of the joint effects of biological vulnerabilities and environmental provoking experiences. Advancing understanding of female depression will require future epidemiologic research to focus on first onsets and to follow incident cohorts of young people through the pubertal transition into young adulthood with fine-grained measures of both sex hormones and gender-related environmental experiences. Experimental interventions aimed at primary prevention by jointly manipulating putative biological and environmental risk factors will likely be needed to adjudicate between contending causal hypotheses regarding the separate and joint effects of interrelated risk factors.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Depression as an aetiologic and prognostic factor in coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of 6362 events among 146 538 participants in 54 observational studies.

            With negative treatment trials, the role of depression as an aetiological or prognostic factor in coronary heart disease (CHD) remains controversial. We quantified the effect of depression on CHD, assessing the extent of confounding by coronary risk factors and disease severity. Meta-analysis of cohort studies measuring depression with follow-up for fatal CHD/incident myocardial infarction (aetiological) or all-cause mortality/fatal CHD (prognostic). We searched MEDLINE and Science Citation Index until December 2003. In 21 aetiological studies, the pooled relative risk of future CHD associated with depression was 1.81 (95% CI 1.53-2.15). Adjusted results were included for 11 studies, with adjustment reducing the crude effect marginally from 2.08 (1.69-2.55) to 1.90 (1.49-2.42). In 34 prognostic studies, the pooled relative risk was 1.80 (1.50-2.15). Results adjusted for left ventricular function result were available in only eight studies; and this attenuated the relative risk from 2.18 to 1.53 (1.11-2.10), a 48% reduction. Both aetiological and prognostic studies without adjusted results had lower unadjusted effect sizes than studies from which adjusted results were included (P<0.01). Depression has yet to be established as an independent risk factor for CHD because of incomplete and biased availability of adjustment for conventional risk factors and severity of coronary disease.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Depression in heart failure a meta-analytic review of prevalence, intervention effects, and associations with clinical outcomes.

              This article describes a meta-analysis of published associations between depression and heart failure (HF) in regard to 3 questions: 1) What is the prevalence of depression among patients with HF? 2) What is the magnitude of the relationship between depression and clinical outcomes in the HF population? 3) What is the evidence for treatment effectiveness in reducing depression in HF patients? Key word searches of the Medline and PsycInfo databases, as well as reference searches in published HF and depression articles, identified 36 publications meeting our criteria. Clinically significant depression was present in 21.5% of HF patients, and varied by the use of questionnaires versus diagnostic interview (33.6% and 19.3%, respectively) and New York Heart Association-defined HF severity (11% in class I vs. 42% in class IV), among other factors. Combined results suggested higher rates of death and secondary events (risk ratio = 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 2.6), trends toward increased health care use, and higher rates of hospitalization and emergency room visits among depressed patients. Treatment studies generally relied on small samples, but also suggested depression symptom reductions from a variety of interventions. In sum, clinically significant depression is present in at least 1 in 5 patients with HF; however, depression rates can be much higher among patients screened with questionnaires or with more advanced HF. The relationship between depression and poorer HF outcomes is consistent and strong across multiple end points. These findings reinforce the importance of psychosocial research in HF populations and identify a number of areas for future study.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                2008
                21 October 2008
                30 September 2018
                Article
                10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.190769
                18824640

                Comments

                Comment on this article