冠心病的心理干预措施。
Psychological interventions for coronary heart disease.
作者信息
Richards Suzanne H, Anderson Lindsey, Jenkinson Caroline E, Whalley Ben, Rees Karen, Davies Philippa, Bennett Paul, Liu Zulian, West Robert, Thompson David R, Taylor Rod S
机构信息
Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Charles Thackrah Building, 101 Clarendon Road, Leeds, UK, LS2 9LJ.
Primary Care, University of Exeter Medical School, St Luke's Campus, Magdalen Road, Exeter, Devon, UK, EX1 2LU.
出版信息
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 28;4(4):CD002902. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002902.pub4.
BACKGROUND
Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the most common cause of death globally, although mortality rates are falling. Psychological symptoms are prevalent for people with CHD, and many psychological treatments are offered following cardiac events or procedures with the aim of improving health and outcomes. This is an update of a Cochrane systematic review previously published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of psychological interventions (alone or with cardiac rehabilitation) compared with usual care (including cardiac rehabilitation where available) for people with CHD on total mortality and cardiac mortality; cardiac morbidity; and participant-reported psychological outcomes of levels of depression, anxiety, and stress; and to explore potential study-level predictors of the effectiveness of psychological interventions in this population.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated the previous Cochrane Review searches by searching the following databases on 27 April 2016: CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), and CINAHL (EBSCO).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological interventions compared to usual care, administered by trained staff, and delivered to adults with a specific diagnosis of CHD. We selected only studies estimating the independent effect of the psychological component, and with a minimum follow-up of six months. The study population comprised of adults after: a myocardial infarction (MI), a revascularisation procedure (coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)), and adults with angina or angiographically defined coronary artery disease (CAD). RCTs had to report at least one of the following outcomes: mortality (total- or cardiac-related); cardiac morbidity (MI, revascularisation procedures); or participant-reported levels of depression, anxiety, or stress.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of all references for eligibility. A lead review author extracted study data, which a second review author checked. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information.
MAIN RESULTS
This review included 35 studies which randomised 10,703 people with CHD (14 trials and 2577 participants added to this update). The population included mainly men (median 77.0%) and people post-MI (mean 65.7%) or after undergoing a revascularisation procedure (mean 27.4%). The mean age of participants within trials ranged from 53 to 67 years. Overall trial reporting was poor, with around a half omitting descriptions of randomisation sequence generation, allocation concealment procedures, or the blinding of outcome assessments. The length of follow-up ranged from six months to 10.7 years (median 12 months). Most studies (23/35) evaluated multifactorial interventions, which included therapies with multiple therapeutic components. Ten studies examined psychological interventions targeted at people with a confirmed psychopathology at baseline and two trials recruited people with a psychopathology or another selecting criterion (or both). Of the remaining 23 trials, nine studies recruited unselected participants from cardiac populations reporting some level of psychopathology (3.8% to 53% with depressive symptoms, 32% to 53% with anxiety), 10 studies did not report these characteristics, and only three studies excluded people with psychopathology.Moderate quality evidence showed no risk reduction for total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.05; participants = 7776; studies = 23) or revascularisation procedures (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.11) with psychological therapies compared to usual care. Low quality evidence found no risk reduction for non-fatal MI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.05), although there was a 21% reduction in cardiac mortality (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.98). There was also low or very low quality evidence that psychological interventions improved participant-reported levels of depressive symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.15; GRADE = low), anxiety (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.09; GRADE = low), and stress (SMD -0.56, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.24; GRADE = very low).There was substantial statistical heterogeneity for all psychological outcomes but not clinical outcomes, and there was evidence of small-study bias for one clinical outcome (cardiac mortality: Egger test P = 0.04) and one psychological outcome (anxiety: Egger test P = 0.012). Meta-regression exploring a limited number of intervention characteristics found no significant predictors of intervention effects for total mortality and cardiac mortality. For depression, psychological interventions combined with adjunct pharmacology (where deemed appropriate) for an underlying psychological disorder appeared to be more effective than interventions that did not (β = -0.51, P = 0.003). For anxiety, interventions recruiting participants with an underlying psychological disorder appeared more effective than those delivered to unselected populations (β = -0.28, P = 0.03).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated Cochrane Review found that for people with CHD, there was no evidence that psychological treatments had an effect on total mortality, the risk of revascularisation procedures, or on the rate of non-fatal MI, although the rate of cardiac mortality was reduced and psychological symptoms (depression, anxiety, or stress) were alleviated; however, the GRADE assessments suggest considerable uncertainty surrounding these effects. Considerable uncertainty also remains regarding the people who would benefit most from treatment (i.e. people with or without psychological disorders at baseline) and the specific components of successful interventions. Future large-scale trials testing the effectiveness of psychological therapies are required due to the uncertainty within the evidence. Future trials would benefit from testing the impact of specific (rather than multifactorial) psychological interventions for participants with CHD, and testing the targeting of interventions on different populations (i.e. people with CHD, with or without psychopathologies).
背景
冠心病(CHD)是全球最常见的死因,尽管死亡率正在下降。冠心病患者普遍存在心理症状,许多心理治疗在心脏事件或手术后提供,目的是改善健康状况和治疗效果。这是对2011年发表的Cochrane系统评价的更新。
目的
评估心理干预(单独或与心脏康复相结合)与常规护理(包括可用时的心脏康复)相比,对冠心病患者全因死亡率和心脏死亡率、心脏发病率、参与者报告的抑郁、焦虑和压力水平的心理结局的有效性,并探讨该人群中心理干预有效性的潜在研究水平预测因素。
检索方法
我们通过检索以下数据库更新了之前的Cochrane系统评价检索:2016年4月27日的Cochrane图书馆中的CENTRAL、MEDLINE(Ovid)、Embase(Ovid)、PsycINFO(Ovid)和CINAHL(EBSCO)。
选择标准
我们纳入了心理干预与常规护理相比的随机对照试验(RCT),由经过培训的工作人员实施,并针对明确诊断为冠心病的成年人。我们仅选择估计心理成分独立效应且随访至少六个月的研究。研究人群包括以下情况后的成年人:心肌梗死(MI)、血运重建手术(冠状动脉搭桥术(CABG)或经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)),以及患有心绞痛或血管造影定义的冠状动脉疾病(CAD)的成年人。RCT必须报告以下至少一项结局:死亡率(全因或心脏相关)、心脏发病率(MI、血运重建手术)或参与者报告的抑郁、焦虑或压力水平。
数据收集与分析
两位综述作者独立筛选所有参考文献的标题和摘要以确定其是否符合纳入标准。一位主要综述作者提取研究数据,另一位综述作者进行核对。我们联系研究作者以获取缺失信息。
主要结果
本综述纳入了35项研究,共随机分配了10703例冠心病患者(本次更新增加了14项试验和2577名参与者)。人群主要包括男性(中位数为77.0%)以及心肌梗死后患者(平均为65.7%)或接受血运重建手术后的患者(平均为27.4%)。试验中参与者的平均年龄在53至67岁之间。总体试验报告质量较差,约一半的试验省略了随机序列产生、分配隐藏程序或结局评估的盲法描述。随访时间从六个月到10.7年不等(中位数为12个月)。大多数研究(23/35)评估了多因素干预,其中包括具有多种治疗成分的疗法。十项研究针对基线时确诊有精神病理学的人群进行心理干预,两项试验招募了有精神病理学或其他选择标准(或两者皆有)的人群。在其余23项试验中,九项研究从报告有一定程度精神病理学的心脏人群中招募未选择的参与者(3.8%至53%有抑郁症状,32%至53%有焦虑症状),十项研究未报告这些特征,只有三项研究排除了有精神病理学的人群。中等质量证据表明,与常规护理相比,心理治疗在全因死亡率(风险比(RR)0.90,95%置信区间(CI)0.77至1.05;参与者 = 7776;研究 = 23)或血运重建手术方面(RR 0.94,95% CI 0.81至1.11)没有降低风险。低质量证据发现非致命性心肌梗死风险没有降低(RR 0.82,95% CI 0.64至1.05),尽管心脏死亡率降低了21%(RR 0.79,95% CI 0.63至0.98)。也有低或极低质量证据表明心理干预改善了参与者报告的抑郁症状水平(标准化均数差(SMD) -0.27,95% CI -0.39至 -0.15;GRADE = 低)、焦虑(SMD -0.24,95% CI -0.38至 -0.09;GRADE = 低)和压力(SMD -0.56,95% CI -0.88至 -0.24;GRADE = 极低)。所有心理结局存在显著的统计学异质性,但临床结局不存在,并且有证据表明一项临床结局(心脏死亡率:Egger检验P = 0.04)和一项心理结局(焦虑:Egger检验P = 0.012)存在小研究偏倚。探索有限数量干预特征的Meta回归发现,全因死亡率和心脏死亡率的干预效果没有显著预测因素。对于抑郁,心理干预联合辅助药物治疗(在认为适当时)针对潜在心理障碍似乎比未联合药物治疗的干预更有效(β = -0.51,P = 0.003)。对于焦虑来说,招募有潜在心理障碍参与者的干预似乎比针对未选择人群的干预更有效(β = -0.28,P = 0.03)。
作者结论
这项更新的Cochrane系统评价发现对于冠心病患者,没有证据表明心理治疗对全因死亡率、血运重建手术风险或非致命性心肌梗死发生率有影响,尽管心脏死亡率有所降低且心理症状(抑郁、焦虑或压力)得到缓解;然而,GRADE评估表明这些影响存在相当大的不确定性。对于最能从治疗中获益的人群(即基线时有或没有心理障碍的人群)以及成功干预的具体组成部分也存在相当大的不确定性。由于证据存在不确定性,未来需要进行大规模试验来测试心理治疗方法的有效性。未来的试验将受益于测试针对冠心病患者的特定(而非多因素)心理干预的影响,以及测试针对不同人群(即有或没有精神病理学的冠心病患者)的干预针对性。
相似文献
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-4-28
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-6-28
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-11-6
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-4-19
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-12-22
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-2-6
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-10-19
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-9-29
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-8-15
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-5-14
引用本文的文献
Medicine (Baltimore). 2025-6-13
本文引用的文献
Curr Cardiol Rep. 2015-10