SMARTphone-based, Early Cardiac REHABilitation in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes [SMART-REHAB Trial]: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Psychological interventions for depression and anxiety in patients with coronary heart disease, heart failure or atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Depression and anxiety occur frequently (with reported prevalence rates of around 40%) in individuals with coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF) or atrial fibrillation (AF) and are associated with a poor prognosis, such as decreased health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and increased morbidity and mortality. Psychological interventions are developed and delivered by psychologists or specifically trained healthcare workers and commonly include cognitive behavioural therapies and mindfulness-based stress reduction. They have been shown to reduce depression and anxiety in the general population, though the exact mechanism of action is not well understood. Further, their effects on psychological and clinical outcomes in patients with CHD, HF or AF are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychological interventions (alone, or with cardiac rehabilitation or pharmacotherapy, or both) in adults who have a diagnosis of CHD, HF or AF, compared to no psychological intervention, on psychological and clinical outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2009 to July 2022. We also searched three clinical trials registers in September 2020, and checked the reference lists of included studies. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychological interventions with no psychological intervention for a minimum of six months follow-up in adults aged over 18 years with a clinical diagnosis of CHD, HF or AF, with or without depression or anxiety. Studies had to report on either depression or anxiety or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were depression and anxiety, and our secondary outcomes of interest were HRQoL mental and physical components, all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one studies (2591 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Sixteen studies included people with CHD, five with HF and none with AF. Study sample sizes ranged from 29 to 430. Twenty and 17 studies reported the primary outcomes of depression and anxiety, respectively. Despite the high heterogeneity and variation, we decided to pool the studies using a random-effects model, recognising that the model does not eliminate heterogeneity and findings should be interpreted cautiously. We found that psychological interventions probably have a moderate effect on reducing depression (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.65 to -0.06; 20 studies, 2531 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and anxiety (SMD -0.57, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.18; 17 studies, 2235 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), compared to no psychological intervention. Psychological interventions may have little to no effect on HRQoL physical component summary scores (PCS) (SMD 0.48, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.98; 12 studies, 1454 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may have a moderate effect on improving HRQoL mental component summary scores (MCS) (SMD 0.63, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.26; 12 studies, 1454 participants; low-certainty evidence), compared to no psychological intervention. Psychological interventions probably have little to no effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.69; 3 studies, 615 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may have little to no effect on MACE (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.92; 4 studies, 450 participants; low-certainty evidence), compared to no psychological intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that psychological interventions for depression and anxiety probably result in a moderate reduction in depression and anxiety and may result in a moderate improvement in HRQoL MCS, compared to no intervention. However, they may have little to no effect on HRQoL PCS and MACE, and probably do not reduce mortality (all-cause) in adults who have a diagnosis of CHD or HF, compared with no psychological intervention. There was moderate to substantial heterogeneity identified across studies. Thus, evidence of treatment effects on these outcomes warrants careful interpretation. As there were no studies of psychological interventions for patients with AF included in our review, this is a gap that needs to be addressed in future studies, particularly in view of the rapid growth of research on management of AF. Studies investigating cost-effectiveness, return to work and cardiovascular morbidity (revascularisation) are also needed to better understand the benefits of psychological interventions in populations with heart disease.

The effectiveness of interactive cardiac rehabilitation web applications versus usual care on programme completion in patients with cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Although available evidence demonstrates positive clinical outcomes for patients attending and completing cardiac rehabilitation, the effectiveness of interactive cardiac rehabilitation web applications on programme completion has not been systematically examined.

METHODS

This JBI systematic review of effects included studies measuring effectiveness of interactive cardiac rehabilitation web applications compared to telephone, and centre-based programmes. Outcome data were pooled under programme completion and clinical outcomes (body mass index, low-density lipoproteins, and blood pressure). Databases including MEDLINE (via Ovid), Cochrane Library, Scopus (via Elsevier) and CINAHL (via EBSCO) published in English were searched. Articles were screened and reviewed by two independent reviewers for inclusion, and the JBI critical appraisal tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool were applied to appraise and assess the certainty of the findings of the included studies. A meta-analysis of the primary and secondary outcomes used random effects models.

RESULTS

In total, nine studies involving 1175 participants who participated in web-based cardiac rehabilitation to usual care were identified. The mean critical appraisal tool score was 76 (standard deviation: 9.7) with all (100%) studies scoring >69%, and the certainty of evidence low. Web-based programmes were 43% more likely to be completed than usual care (risk ratio: 1.43; 95% confidence interval: 0.96, 2.13) There was no difference between groups for clinical outcomes.

DISCUSSION

Despite the relatively small number of studies, high heterogeneity and the limited outcome measures, the results appeared to favour web-based cardiac rehabilitation with regard to programme completion.