OBJECTIVE: Coronary artery calcification (CAC) has been associated with psychosocial factors in some but not all cross-sectional analyses. The goal of this study was to determine whether positive and negative psychosocial factors prospectively predict CAC progression in postmenopausal women. METHODS: Participants from the Healthy Women Study who also participated in the Pittsburgh Mind-Body Center protocol (n = 149) completed self-report psychosocial measures before two electron beam computed tomographic scans of CAC separated by an average of 3.3 years. Results of exploratory factor analysis were used to create aggregate psychosocial indices: psychological risk (depressive symptoms, perceived stress, cynicism, and anger-in) and psychosocial resources (optimism, purpose in life, mastery, self-esteem, and social support). RESULTS: The psychological risk index predicted significantly greater CAC progression over 3 years (β = 0.16, p = .035, ΔR(2) = 0.03), whereas the psychosocial resources index was not predictive of CAC progression (β = -0.08, p = .30, ΔR(2) = 0.01). On individual scales, higher scores on cynicism emerged as a significant predictor of CAC progression, along with a trend linking anger-in to atherosclerosis progression. A post hoc analysis showed a significant interaction between cynicism and anger-in (β = 0.20, p = .01, ΔR(2) = 0.03), such that women reporting high levels of both cynicism and anger suppression exhibited the most CAC progression. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight psychosocial risk factors that may accelerate the progression of subclinical atherosclerosis in older women, suggest the potential importance of examining combinations of psychosocial risk factors, and identify potential targets for psychological interventions to reduce cardiovascular risk.
OBJECTIVE:Coronary artery calcification (CAC) has been associated with psychosocial factors in some but not all cross-sectional analyses. The goal of this study was to determine whether positive and negative psychosocial factors prospectively predict CAC progression in postmenopausal women. METHODS:Participants from the Healthy Women Study who also participated in the Pittsburgh Mind-Body Center protocol (n = 149) completed self-report psychosocial measures before two electron beam computed tomographic scans of CAC separated by an average of 3.3 years. Results of exploratory factor analysis were used to create aggregate psychosocial indices: psychological risk (depressive symptoms, perceived stress, cynicism, and anger-in) and psychosocial resources (optimism, purpose in life, mastery, self-esteem, and social support). RESULTS: The psychological risk index predicted significantly greater CAC progression over 3 years (β = 0.16, p = .035, ΔR(2) = 0.03), whereas the psychosocial resources index was not predictive of CAC progression (β = -0.08, p = .30, ΔR(2) = 0.01). On individual scales, higher scores on cynicism emerged as a significant predictor of CAC progression, along with a trend linking anger-in to atherosclerosis progression. A post hoc analysis showed a significant interaction between cynicism and anger-in (β = 0.20, p = .01, ΔR(2) = 0.03), such that women reporting high levels of both cynicism and anger suppression exhibited the most CAC progression. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight psychosocial risk factors that may accelerate the progression of subclinical atherosclerosis in older women, suggest the potential importance of examining combinations of psychosocial risk factors, and identify potential targets for psychological interventions to reduce cardiovascular risk.
Authors: Michael F Scheier; Carsten Wrosch; Andrew Baum; Sheldon Cohen; Lynn M Martire; Karen A Matthews; Richard Schulz; Bozena Zdaniuk Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2006-03-24
Authors: Patricia K Agatisa; Karen A Matthews; Joyce T Bromberger; Daniel Edmundowicz; Yue-Fang Chang; Kim Sutton-Tyrrell Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2005-06-13
Authors: Willem J Kop; Daniel S Berman; Heidi Gransar; Nathan D Wong; Romalisa Miranda-Peats; Maria D White; Magnolia Shin; Melissa Bruce; David S Krantz; Alan Rozanski Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2005 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Rosalba Hernandez; Norrina Bai Allen; Kiang Liu; Jeremiah Stamler; Kathryn Jean Reid; Phyllis C Zee; Donghong Wu; Joseph Kang; Daniel B Garside; Martha L Daviglus Journal: Prev Med Date: 2014-01-13 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: John Bellettiere; Donna Kritz-Silverstein; Gail A Laughlin; Andrea Z LaCroix; Linda K McEvoy; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Donald Edmondson; Jamie Arndt; Carmela Alcántara; William Chaplin; Joseph E Schwartz Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Eli Puterman; Elissa S Epel; Jue Lin; Elizabeth H Blackburn; James J Gross; Mary A Whooley; Beth E Cohen Journal: Brain Behav Immun Date: 2013-05-30 Impact factor: 7.217
Authors: Jenalee R Doom; Brie M Reid; Emily Nagel; Sheila Gahagan; Ellen W Demerath; Julie C Lumeng Journal: Dev Psychobiol Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 3.038