Efficacy of psychological interventions on clinical outcomes of coronary artery disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Psychological factors influence clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Therefore, psychological interventions (PIs) may have beneficial effects in these patients. We evaluated the efficacy of PIs based on cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and positive psychology therapy (PPT) on clinical and laboratory outcomes in CAD. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials evaluating CBT or PPT in CAD patients published until May 2020 were systematically reviewed and analyzed. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, any cardiovascular event, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, coronary revascularization, angina, and readmission. Random effects meta-analyses using the inverse variance method were performed. Effects were expressed as risk ratios (RR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Twenty-five trials were included (n = 8119); 22 evaluating the effects of multi-component CBT (n = 7909), and three PPT (n = 210). Thirteen RCTs were at high risk of bias due to limitations in randomization or blinding. Compared with control groups any cardiovascular event (RR 0.82; 0.70 to 0.97; 5 studies), MI (RR 0.72; 0.52 to 0.98; 9 studies), and angina duration and intensity (SMD -0.64; -0.98 to -0.30; 4 studies; and -0.64; -1.17 to -0.11; 2 trials) were significantly reduced with PIs at the end of follow-up. PIs had no effect on other primary outcomes, laboratory or anthropometrical results and presented a moderate to high heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: CBT- and PPT-based PIs reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, MI and angina in patients with CAD. Future research should assess the individual role of CBT and PPT in CAD populations.

Use of adaptive servo ventilation therapy as treatment of sleep-disordered breathing and heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Adaptive servoventilation (ASV) has been reported to show improvement in patients with sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) and heart failure (HF); however, its role as a second-line or adjunctive treatment is not clear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of new existing data including cardiac mechanistic factor, geometry, and cardiac biomarkers. METHODS: We systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that assessed the efficacy or effectiveness of ASV compared to conventional treatments for SDB and HF in five research databases from their inception to November 2018. Random-effects meta-analyses using the inverse variance method and stratified by study design were performed. RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs (n = 859) and 5 cohorts (n = 162) that met our inclusion criteria. ASV significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in cohorts (MD 6.96%, 95% CI 2.58, 11.34, p = 0.002), but not in RCTs. Also, the ASV group had significantly lower apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) in both cohorts (MD - 26.02, 95% CI - 36.94, - 15.10, p < 0.00001) and RCTs (MD - 21.83, 95% CI - 28.17, - 15.49, p < 0.00001). ASV did not significantly decrease the E/e' ratio in RCTs or in cohorts. Finally, ASV significantly decreased brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) in the cohorts (SMD - 121.99, CI 95% - 186.47, - 57.51, p = 0.0002) but not in RCTs. ASV did not have a significant effect on systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and cardiac diameters. CONCLUSIONS: ASV therapy is associated with improvements of AHI in comparison to alternative treatments in patients with SDB and HF. ASV did not improve LVEF or E/e' ratios in randomized trials; other intermediate outcomes did not improve significantly.