BACKGROUND: Secondary prevention in patients with ischaemic heart disease (IHD) focusing on classical risk factors has been less successful in women than in men. Previous studies have suggested that psychosocial factors may be new targets for secondary prevention. In the present study, psychosocial factors have been compared in women with and without IHD. METHODS AND SUBJECTS: Using a cross-sectional comparison, classical cardiovascular risk factors and self-rated stress behaviour, vital exhaustion, stressful life events and quality of life were assessed in 198 women (age 35-77 years) who had IHD and a population-based sample of 206 women (age 45-74 years) without IHD. RESULTS: Control of classical risk factors was most often adequate in women with IHD. The prevalence of smoking was 9% in women with versus 18% in women without IHD (P<0.001), blood pressure levels were similar, and a very large share of women with IHD were on treatment with anti-thrombotic, anti-hypertensive and/or lipid-lowering drugs (P<0.001 compared with women free of IHD). In contrast, women with IHD scored significantly worse than women without IHD in self-rated stress behaviour (P=0.003 after adjustment for other possible determinants), and in vital exhaustion (P=0.003). In univariate analyses, quality of life was significantly worse in women with IHD. Stressful life events did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this group of women with IHD, control of classical risk factors was good, whereas control of psychosocial risk factors was clearly inadequate. Secondary prevention by psychosocial intervention in women with IHD should be evaluated in randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND: Secondary prevention in patients with ischaemic heart disease (IHD) focusing on classical risk factors has been less successful in women than in men. Previous studies have suggested that psychosocial factors may be new targets for secondary prevention. In the present study, psychosocial factors have been compared in women with and without IHD. METHODS AND SUBJECTS: Using a cross-sectional comparison, classical cardiovascular risk factors and self-rated stress behaviour, vital exhaustion, stressful life events and quality of life were assessed in 198 women (age 35-77 years) who had IHD and a population-based sample of 206 women (age 45-74 years) without IHD. RESULTS: Control of classical risk factors was most often adequate in women with IHD. The prevalence of smoking was 9% in women with versus 18% in women without IHD (P<0.001), blood pressure levels were similar, and a very large share of women with IHD were on treatment with anti-thrombotic, anti-hypertensive and/or lipid-lowering drugs (P<0.001 compared with women free of IHD). In contrast, women with IHD scored significantly worse than women without IHD in self-rated stress behaviour (P=0.003 after adjustment for other possible determinants), and in vital exhaustion (P=0.003). In univariate analyses, quality of life was significantly worse in women with IHD. Stressful life events did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this group of women with IHD, control of classical risk factors was good, whereas control of psychosocial risk factors was clearly inadequate. Secondary prevention by psychosocial intervention in women with IHD should be evaluated in randomized controlled trials.
Authors: Cristina Zarbo; Angelo Compare; Elena Baldassari; Alberto Bonardi; Claudia Romagnoni Journal: Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health Date: 2013-12-27
Authors: Maria K Svensson; Stina Lindmark; Urban Wiklund; Peter Rask; Marcus Karlsson; Jan Myrin; Joel Kullberg; Lars Johansson; Jan W Eriksson Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2016-06-28 Impact factor: 9.951
Authors: Angelo Compare; Cristina Zarbo; Gian Mauro Manzoni; Gianluca Castelnuovo; Elena Baldassari; Alberto Bonardi; Edward Callus; Claudia Romagnoni Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2013-07-01
Authors: Tone M Norekvål; Astrid K Wahl; Bengt Fridlund; Jan E Nordrehaug; Tore Wentzel-Larsen; Berit R Hanestad Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2007-10-30 Impact factor: 3.186