Use of transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) in the treatment of drug-resistant depression - a pilot study, presentation of five clinical cases. / Zastosowanie przezskórnej usznej stymulacji nerwu blednego (taVNS) w leczeniu pacjentów z depresja lekooporna ­ badanie pilotazowe, prezentacja pieciu przypadków klinicznych.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to assess safety and efficacy of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) as the method added to standard pharmacotherapy in the group of patients with treatment-resistant depression. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We present results of pilot study involving the use of commercially available transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulators. With external, non-invasive nature of new solution, the patient is avoiding possible side effects of surgical operation. taVNS is a relatively new, noninvasive VNS method based on the location of afferent vagus nerve distribution on the surface of the ear. The pilot study group consisted of 5 patients with treatment-resistant depression. All patients suffered from severe depression with no response to appropriate courses of at least two different antidepressants. The assumed observation time was 12 weeks. The duration of stimulation was 4 hours/day, divided in 2 sessions. Mental state was assessed by clinician with the use of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) and the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI). RESULTS: In 2 cases substantial improvement of mental state was observed (significant improvement in scoring scales, improvement of mood and drive, decrease of anxiety). 3 patients resigned from the study because of difficulties in handling devices. CONCLUSIONS: In 2 cases substantial improvement of mental state was observed (significant improvement in scoring scales, improvement of mood and drive, decrease of anxiety). 3 patients resigned from the study because of difficulties in handling devices.

Antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents for secondary prevention of stroke and other thromboembolic events in people with antiphospholipid syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune disease characterized by arterial or venous thrombosis (or both), and/or pregnancy morbidity in association with the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies. The prevalence of APS is estimated at 40 to 50 cases per 100,000 people. The most common sites of thrombosis are cerebral arteries and deep veins of the lower limbs. People with a definite APS diagnosis have an increased lifetime risk of recurrent thrombotic events. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antiplatelet (AP) or anticoagulant agents, or both, for the secondary prevention of recurrent thrombosis, particularly ischemic stroke, in people with APS. SEARCH METHODS: We last searched the MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, and ongoing trials registers on 22 November 2019. We checked reference lists of included studies, systematic reviews, and practice guidelines. We also contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any anticoagulant or AP agent, or both, in the secondary prevention of thrombosis in people with APS, according to the criteria valid when the study took place. We did not include studies specifically addressing women with obstetrical APS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently worked on each step of the review, following Cochrane methods. We summarized the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight studies including 811 participants that compared different AP or anticoagulant agents. NOAC (non-VKA oral anticoagulant: rivaroxaban 15 or 20 mg/d) versus standard-dose VKA (vitamin K antagonist: warfarin at moderate International Normalized Ratio [INR] - 2.5) or adjusted [INR 2.0-3.0] dose): In three studies there were no differences in any thromboembolic event (including death) and major bleeding (moderate-certainty evidence), but an increased risk of stroke (risk ratio [RR] 14.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.87 to 106.8; moderate-certainty evidence). One of the studies reported a small benefit of rivaroxaban in terms of quality of life at 180 days measured as health state on Visual Analogue Scale (mean difference [MD] 7 mm, 95% CI 2.01 to 11.99; low-certainty evidence), but not measured as health utility on a scale from 0 to 1 (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.10; low-certainty evidence). High-dose VKA (warfarin with a target INR of 3.1 to 4.0 [mean 3.3] or 3.5 [mean 3.2]) versus standard-dose VKA (warfarin with a target INR of 2.0 to 3.0 [mean 2.3] or 2.5 [mean 2.5]): In two studies there were no differences in the rates of thrombotic events and major bleeding (RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.79 to 6.23, low-certainty evidence), but an increased risk of minor bleeding in one study during a mean of 3.4 years (standard deviation [SD] 1.2) of follow-up (RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.07 to 6.07). In both trials there was evidence of a higher risk of any bleeding (hazard ratio [HR] 2.03 95% CI 1.12 to 3.68; low-certainty evidence) in the high-dose VKA group, and for this outcome (any bleeding) the incidence is not different, only the time to event is showing an effect. Standard-dose VKA plus a single AP agent (warfarin at a target INR of 2.0 to 3.0 plus aspirin 100 mg/d) versus standard-dose VKA (warfarin at a target INR of 2.0 to 3.0): One high-risk-of-bias study showed an increased risk of any thromboembolic event with combined treatment (RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.04 to 4.43; low-certainty evidence) and reported on major bleeding with five cases in the combined treatment group and one case in the standard-dose VKA treatment group, resulting in RR 7.42 (95% CI 0.91 to 60.7; low-certainty evidence) and no differences for secondary outcomes (very low- to low-certainty evidence). Single/dual AP agent and standard-dose VKA (pooled results): Two high-risk-of-bias studies compared a combination of AP and VKA (aspirin 100 mg/d plus warfarin or unspecified VKA at a target INR of 2.0 to 3.0 or 2.0 to 2.5) with a single AP agent (aspirin 100 mg/d), but did not provide any conclusive evidence regarding the effects of those drugs in people with APS (very low-certainty evidence). One of the above-mentioned studies was a three-armed study that compared a combination of AP and VKA (aspirin 100 mg/d plus warfarin at a target INR of 2.0 to 2.5) with dual AP therapy (aspirin 100 mg/d plus cilostazol 200 mg/d) and dual AP therapy (aspirin 100 mg/d plus cilostazol 200 mg/d) versus a single AP treatment (aspirin 100 mg/d). This study reported on stroke (very low-certainty evidence) but did not report on any thromboembolic events, major bleeding, or any secondary outcomes. We identified two ongoing studies and three studies are awaiting classification. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence identified indicates that NOACs compared with standard-dose VKAs may increase the risk of stroke and do not appear to alter the risk of other outcomes (moderate-certainty evidence). Using high-dose VKA versus standard-dose VKA did not alter the risk of any thromboembolic event or major bleeding but may increase the risk of any form of bleeding (low-certainty evidence). Standard-dose VKA combined with an AP agent compared with standard-dose VKA alone may increase the risk of any thromboembolic event and does not appear to alter the risk of major bleeding or other outcomes (low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the benefit or harm of using standard-dose VKA plus AP agents versus single or dual AP therapy, or dual versus single AP therapy, for the secondary prevention of recurrent thrombosis in people with APS (very low-certainty evidence).

Cardiovascular response to different types of acute stress stimulations.

INTRODUCTION: Stress is an ubiquitous phenomenon in the modern world and one of the major risk factors for cardiovascular disease. e aim of our study was to evaluate the effect of various acute stress stimuli on autonomic nervous system (ANS) activity, assessed on the basis of heart rate (HRV) and blood pressure (BPV) variability analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: the study included 15 healthy volunteers: 9 women, 6 men aged 20-30 years (23.3 ± 1.8). ANS activity was assessed by HRV and BPV measurement using Task Force Monitor 3040 (CNSystems, Austria). ECG registration and Blood Pressure (BP) measurement was done 10 minutes at rest, 10 minutes a er the stress stimulus (sound signal, acoustic startle, frequency 1100 Hz, duration 0.5 sec, at the intensity 95 dB) and 10 minutes after the cold pressor test. The cold pressor test (CPT) was done by placing the person's hand by wrist in ice water (0-4°C) for 120 s. RESULTS: Every kind of stress stimulation (acoustic startle; the CPT) caused changes of HRV indicator values. The time domain HRV analysis parameters (pNN50, RMSSD) decreased after acoustic stress and the CPT, but were significantly lower after the CPT. In frequency domain HRV analysis, significant differences were observed only after the CPT: (LF-RRI 921.23 ms2 vs. 700.09 ms2; p = 0.009 and HF-RRI 820.75 ms2 vs. 659.52 ms2; p = 0.002). The decrease of LF-RRI and HF-RRI value after the CPT was significantly higher than after the acoustic startle (LF-RRI 34% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.022; HF-RRI 19.7% vs. 7% ms2, p = 0.011). The decreased value of the LF and HF components of HRV analysis are indicative of sympathetic activation. Nonlinear analysis of HRV indicated a significant decrease in the Poincare plot SD1 (p = 0.039) and an increase of DFAα2 (p = 0.001) in response to the CPT stress stimulation. The systolic BPV parameter LF/HF-sBP increased significantly after the CPT (2.84 vs. 3.31; p = 0.019) and was higher than after the acoustic startle (3.31 vs. 3.06; p = 0.035). Significantly higher values of diastolic BP (67.17 ± 8.10 vs. 69.65 ± 9.94 mmHg, p = 0.038) and median BP (83.39 ± 8.65 vs. 85.30 ± 10.20 mmHg, p = 0.039) were observed in the CPT group than in the acoustic startle group. CONCLUSIONS: the Cold Pressor Test has a greater stimulatory effect on the sympathetic autonomic system in comparison to the unexpected acoustic startle stress. Regardless of whether the stimulation originates from the central nervous system (acoustic startle) or the peripheral nervous system (CPT), the final response is demonstrated by an increase in the low frequency components of blood pressure variability and a decrease in the low and high frequency components of heart rate variability.

Satisfaction of physicians working in hospitals within the European Union: state of the evidence based on systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite the wide range of studies concerning physician satisfaction in different European countries, there is a lack of literature reviews synthesizing and analyzing current evidence evaluating satisfaction of physicians working in European hospitals. The goal of our research was to provide a general overview of the studies in this area and their results. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library from January 2000 to January 2017 including both MESH/Emtree terms and free text words related to the subject with no language restrictions. The eligibility criteria included: (i) target population: physicians working in European hospitals, (ii) quantitative research aimed at assessing physician satisfaction and (iii) validated tools. We performed a narrative synthesis and meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 8585 abstracts and 368 full text articles were independently screened by 2 reviewers against inclusion/exclusion criteria. Finally 61 studies were eligible for qualitative analysis. Included studies enrolled a total of 50 001 physicians from 17 countries. Sample sizes varied between 54 and 7090 participants (median: 336). According to our review ∼59% of physicians working in European hospitals are overall satisfied, 3.54 was the mean satisfaction among studies reporting data on a scale from 1 to 5, 4.81 for studies with a scale from 1 to 7, 6.12 among studies reporting data on a scale from 1 to 10, and 59.65 among studies with a scale from 0 to 100. CONCLUSIONS: The level of physician satisfaction in Europe is moderate. There is a large variety of tools and scales used to assess it.

Factors Associated with Satisfaction of Hospital Physicians: A Systematic Review on European Data.

BACKGROUND: Physician satisfaction is a multidimensional concept related to many factors. Despite the wide range of research regarding factors affecting physician satisfaction in different European countries, there is a lack of literature reviews analyzing and summarizing current evidence. The aim of the article is to synthetize the literature studying the factors associated with physician satisfaction. METHODS: We searched: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library from January 2000 to January 2017. The eligibility criteria included: (1) target population: physicians working in European hospitals; (2) quantitative research aimed at assessing physician satisfaction and associated factors; (3) use of validated tools. We performed a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: After screening 8585 records, 368 full text articles were independently checked and finally 24 studies were included for qualitative analysis. The included studies surveyed 20,000 doctors from 12 European countries. The tools and scales used in the analyzed research to measure physician satisfaction varied to a large extent. We extracted all pre-specified factors, reported as statistically significant/non-significant. Analyzed factors were divided into three groups: personal, intrinsic and contextual factors. The majority of factors are modifiable and positively associated with characteristics of contextual factors, such as work-place setting/work environment. In the group of work-place related factors, quality of management/leadership, opportunity for professional development and colleague support have been deemed statistically significant in numerous studies. CONCLUSIONS: We identified more studies appraising the effect of contextual factors (such as work environment, work-place characteristics), highlighting a positive association between those factors and physician satisfaction, compared with personal and intrinsic factors. Numerous studies confirmed statistically significant associations between physician satisfaction and quality of management, professional development and colleague support/team climate. Due to the health workforce crisis, knowledge regarding physician satisfaction and associated factors is essential to healthcare managers and policy makers for more stable human resources management.

Antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents for secondary prevention of stroke and other thromboembolic events in people with antiphospholipid syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune disease characterized by arterial or venous thrombosis (or both) and/or pregnancy morbidity in association with the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies. The prevalence is estimated at 40 to 50 cases per 100,000 people. The most common sites of thrombosis are cerebral arteries and deep veins of the lower limbs. People with a definite APS diagnosis have an increased lifetime risk of recurrent thrombotic events. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents, or both, for the secondary prevention of recurrent thrombosis, particularly ischemic stroke, in people with antiphospholipid syndrome. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (February 2017), CENTRAL (last search February 2017), MEDLINE (from 1948 to February 2017), Embase (from 1980 to February 2017), and several ongoing trials registers. We also checked the reference lists of included studies, systematic reviews, and practice guidelines, and we contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any anticoagulant or antiplatelet agent, or both, in the secondary prevention of thrombosis in people diagnosed with APS according to the criteria valid when the study took place. We did not include studies specifically addressing women with obstetrical APS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias for the included studies. We resolved any discrepancies through discussion or by consulting a third review author and, in addition, one review author checked all the extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We included five studies involving 419 randomized participants with APS. Only one study was at low risk of bias in all domains. One study was at low risk of bias in all domains for objective outcomes but not for quality of life (measured using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire). We judged the other three studies to be at unclear or high risk of bias in three or more domains.The duration of intervention ranged from 180 days to a mean of 3.9 years. One study compared rivaroxaban (a novel oral anticoagulant: NOAC) with standard warfarin treatment and reported no thrombotic or major bleeding events, but it was not powered to detect such differences (low-quality evidence). Investigators reported similar rates of clinically relevant non-major bleeding (risk ratio (RR) 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 8.33; moderate-quality evidence) and minor bleeding (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.83) for participants receiving rivaroxaban and the standard vitamin K antagonists (VKA). This study also reported some small benefit with rivaroxaban over the standard VKA treatment in terms of quality of life health state measured at 180 days with the EQ-5D-5L 100 mm visual analogue scale (mean difference (MD) 7 mm, 95% CI 2.01 to 11.99; low-quality evidence) but not measured as health utility (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.10 [on a scale from 0 to 1]).Two studies compared high dose VKA (warfarin) with moderate/standard intensity VKA and found no differences in the rates of any thrombotic events (RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.79 to 6.23) or major bleeding (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.25) between the groups (low-quality evidence). Minor bleeding analyzed using the RR and any bleeding using the hazard ratio (HR) were more frequent in participants receiving high-intensity warfarin treatment compared to the standard-intensity therapy (RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.07 to 6.07; and HR 2.03, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.68; low-quality evidence).In one study, it was not possible to estimate the RR for stroke with a combination of VKA plus antiplatelet agent compared to a single antiplatelet agent, while for major bleeding, a single event occurred in the single antiplatelet agent group. In one study, comparing combined VKA plus antiplatelet agent with dual antiplatelet therapy, the RR of the risk of stroke over three years of observation was 5.00 (95% CI 0.26 to 98.0). In a single small study, the RR for stroke during one year of observation with a dual antiplatelet therapy compared to single antiplatelet drug was 0.14 (95% CI 0.01 to 2.60). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is not enough evidence for or against NOACs or for high-intensity VKA compared to the standard VKA therapy in the secondary prevention of thrombosis in people with APS. There is some evidence of harm for high-intensity VKA regarding minor and any bleeding. The evidence was also not sufficient to show benefit or harm for VKA plus antiplatelet agent or dual antiplatelet therapy compared to a single antiplatelet drug. Future studies should be adequately powered, with proper adherence to treatment, in order to evaluate the effects of anticoagulants, antiplatelets, or both, for secondary thrombosis prevention in APS. We have identified five ongoing trials mainly using NOACs in APS, so increasing experimental efforts are likely to yield additional evidence of clinical relevance in the near future.