You and I Both: Self-Compassion Reduces Self-Other Differences in Evaluation of Showing Vulnerability.

People tend to be overly critical of their own displays of vulnerability, whereas observers evaluate others' showing of vulnerability rather positively (beautiful mess effect). We propose that self-compassion might buffer against such misperceptions of one's own vulnerabilities. When confronted with challenging situations, self-compassionate people are kind to themselves, see adversity as inevitable, and face the difficulty of their circumstances without overexaggeration. Thus, we hypothesized reduced self-other differences in the evaluation of showing vulnerability in self-compassionate individuals. The hypothesis was addressed in four studies. The first two studies measured self-compassion either immediately (Study 1a) or substantially (Study 1b) before participants evaluated showing of vulnerability. Studies 2 and 3 tested the generalizability of the hypothesis across different situations as well as the discriminant validity of self-compassion's role in the reduction of the beautiful mess effect. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Beautiful mess effect: Self-other differences in evaluation of showing vulnerability.

Confessing romantic feelings, asking for help, or taking responsibility for a mistake constitute just a few examples of situations that require showing one's vulnerability. Out of fear, many individuals decide against it. To explore whether these fears are reflected in the evaluation of others, we investigate self-other differences in evaluation of showing vulnerability. Drawing on construal level theory, we hypothesize that the mental representations of individuals who find themselves in a vulnerable situation are rather concrete, shifting the focus on the negative aspects of making oneself vulnerable and resulting in a relatively negative evaluation of showing vulnerability. By contrast, when depicting others in a vulnerable situation, individuals are expected to represent it more abstractly, focus more on the positive aspects of showing vulnerability, and, therefore, evaluate it more positively. A total of seven studies demonstrate the predicted self-other differences in the evaluation of showing vulnerability in various situations, such as confessing love, revealing imperfections of one's body, or asking for help, including evidence on the generalizability of the effect in a real-life situation. Moreover, we report empirical evidence on the crucial role of level of construal in the emergence of the observed self-other differences. (PsycINFO Database Record

Coffee consumption protects against progression in liver cirrhosis and increases long-term survival after liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic options to treat progression of end-stage liver disease (ESLD) or improve long-term survival after liver transplantation remain scarce. We investigated the impact of coffee consumption under these conditions. METHODS: We recorded coffee consumption habits of 379 patients with ESLD awaiting liver transplantation and 260 patients after liver transplantation. Survival was analyzed based on coffee intake. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-five patients with ESLD consumed coffee on a daily basis, while 184 patients did not. Actuarial survival was impaired (P = 0.041) in non-coffee drinkers (40.4 ± 4.3 months, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 32.0-48.9) compared with coffee drinkers (54.9 ± 5.5 months, 95% CI: 44.0-65.7). In subgroup analysis, the survival of patients with alcoholic liver disease (ALD; P = 0.020) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC; P = 0.017) was increased with coffee intake while unaffected in patients with chronic viral hepatitis (P = 0.517) or other liver disease entities (P = 0.652). Multivariate analysis showed that coffee consumption of PSC and ALD patients retained as an independent risk factor (odds ratio [OR]: 1.94; 95% CI: 1.15-3.28; P = 0.013) along with MELD score (OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.09-1.17; P = 0.000). Following liver transplantation, long-term survival was longer in coffee drinkers (coffee: 61.8 ± 2.0 months, 95% CI: 57.9-65.8) than non-drinkers (52.3 ± 3.5 months, 95% CI: 45.4-59.3; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Coffee consumption delayed disease progression in ALD and PSC patients with ESLD and increased long-term survival after liver transplantation. We conclude that regular coffee intake might be recommended for these patients.

Association of serum zinc levels with liver function and survival in patients awaiting liver transplantation.

PURPOSE: Zinc is an important trace element with catalytic and defensive functions. We assessed the impact of zinc deficiency in patients with end-stage liver disease awaiting liver transplantation. METHODS: Serum zinc levels were measured at the time of evaluation for liver transplantation (n = 368). Patients were dichotomized in two groups based on low and normal zinc serum levels. RESULTS: Serum zinc levels are tightly associated with liver function as patients with low zinc levels (n = 226) had a higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (15.0 [5.0-40.0]) than patients with normal zinc (n = 142) levels (9.0 [6.0-34.0]; p < 0.00). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that serum zinc levels function as an independent predictor of hepatic decompensation (hydropic decompensation: odds ratio [OR] 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.96; p = 0.015; hepatic encephalopathy: OR 0.80; 95% CI 0.71-0.90; p = 0.000; spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.72-1.00; p = 0.047; hepatorenal syndrome: OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.72-0.95; p = 0.011). Actuarial survival free of liver transplantation was reduced for low-zinc patients (26.7 ± 4.0 months; 95% CI 18.8-34.6) compared to patients with normal zinc levels (30.9 ± 3.0 months; 95% CI 24.9-36.9; p = 0.008). Reduction of zinc levels for patients on the transplantation list resulted in a 28.3-fold increased risk of death/liver transplantation (95% CI 3.2-244.8, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Serum zinc levels are associated with reduced survival in end-stage liver disease patients. Whether or not zinc supplementation might be beneficial for patients on a liver transplantation list requires further study.

Survival in patients with colorectal cancer diagnosed by screening colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: In Germany, screening colonoscopy was first established in 2002 as part of the national cancer screening program. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether colorectal cancer (CRC) survival differs when CRC is diagnosed by screening colonoscopy (S-CRC) versus diagnostic colonoscopy (D-CRC). DESIGN: Long-term, retrospective, multicenter, observational study. SETTING: Study centers: 10 private gastroenterology practices in Germany. PATIENTS: A total of 60 patients diagnosed with CRC during screening colonoscopy and 252 patients during diagnostic colonoscopy in 2002, 2003, and 2004. INTERVENTIONS: Colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Survival of patients up to December 2013. RESULTS: Mean (± standard deviation [SD]) follow-up time was 81.0 (± 40.1) months. Union Internationale Contre le Cancer (UICC) stages I and II were found more often in S-CRC (81.6%) compared with D-CRC (59.9%; P < .002). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significantly reduced overall survival for patients with D-CRC (mean [± SD] 86.9 [± 3.0] months; 95% confidence interval [CI], 81.0-92.8) compared with S-CRC (mean [± SD] 107.1 [± 4.9] months; 95% CI, 97.4-116.9; P = .003). When deaths not related to CRC were excluded, survival was still shorter for D-CRC patients (mean [± SD] 89.4 [± 3.0] months; 95% CI, 83.5-95.4) compared with S-CRC (mean [± SD] 109.6 [± 4.7] months; 95% CI, 100.2-119.0; P = .004). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study design. CONCLUSION: In this long-term, retrospective study, patients with CRC diagnosed during screening colonoscopy lived significantly longer when compared with patients with CRC diagnosed during diagnostic colonoscopy.

Respiratory complications in outpatient endoscopy with endoscopist-directed sedation.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Respiratory complications represent an important adverse event of endoscopic procedures. We screened for respiratory complications after endoscopic procedures using a questionnaire and followed-up patients suggestive of respiratory infection. METHOD: In this prospective observational, multicenter study performed in Outpatient practices of gastroenterology we investigated 15,690 patients by questionnaires administered 24 hours after the endoscopic procedure. RESULTS: 832 of the 15,690 patients stated at least one respiratory symptom after the endoscopic procedure: 829 patients reported coughing (5.28%), 23 fever (0.15%) and 116 shortness of breath (SOB, 0.74%); 130 of the 832 patients showed at least two concomitant respiratory symptoms (107 coughing + SOB, 17 coughing + fever, 6 coughing + coexisting fever + SOB) and 126 patients were followed-up to assess their respiratory complaints. Twenty-nine patients (follow-up: 22.31%, whole sample: 0.18%) reported signs of clinically evident respiratory infection and 15 patients (follow-up: 11.54%; whole sample: 0.1%) received therefore antibiotic treatment. Coughing or vomiting during the endoscopic procedure resulted in a 156.12-fold increased risk of respiratory complications (95% CI: 67.44 - 361.40) and 520.87-fold increased risk of requiring antibiotic treatment (95% CI: 178.01 - 1524.05). All patients of the follow-up sample who coughed or vomited during endoscopy developed clinically evident signs of respiratory infection and required antibiotic treatment while this occurred in a significantly lower proportion of patients without these symptoms (17.1% and 5.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that respiratory complications following endoscopic sedation are of comparably high incidence and we identified major predictors of aspiration pneumonia which could influence future surveillance strategies after endoscopic procedures.

Safety analysis of endoscopist-directed propofol sedation: a prospective, national multicenter study of 24 441 patients in German outpatient practices.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Since 2008, there exists a German S3-guideline allowing non-anesthesiological administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. In this prospective, national, multicenter study, we evaluated the safety of endoscopist-administered propofol sedation (EDP) in German outpatient practices of Gastroenterology. METHODS: In this multicenter survey of 53 ambulatory practices of Gastroenterology, we prospectively evaluated 24 441 patients that had received EDP. We recorded adverse events during the endoscopic procedure and additionally retrieved questionnaires investigating subjective parameters 24 h after the endoscopic procedure. RESULTS: In 24 441 patients 13 793 colonoscopies, 6467 esophagogastroduodenoscopies, and 4181 double examinations were performed. In this study, 52.1% of the patients received propofol mono-sedation, and 47.9% received a combination of midazolam and propofol. Major adverse events occurred in four patients (0.016%) enrolled to this study (three mask ventilations and one laryngospasm). Minor adverse events were observed in 112 patients (0.46%) with hypoxemia being the most common minor event. All patients with adverse events recovered without persistent impairment. Minor adverse events occurred more frequently in patients sedated with propofol mono compared to propofol and midazolam (P < 0.0001) and correlated with increasing propofol dosages (P < 0.001; Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.044). Twenty-four hours after the endoscopy, patients sedated with propofol plus midazolam stated a significantly reduced sensation of pain (P < 0.01) and improved symptoms of dizziness, nausea and vomiting (P < 0.001) compared to patients having received propofol mono-sedation. CONCLUSION: Four years after the implementation of a German S3-Guideline for endoscopic sedation, we demonstrated that EDP is a safe procedure.