Efficacy of psychological interventions on clinical outcomes of coronary artery disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Psychological factors influence clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Therefore, psychological interventions (PIs) may have beneficial effects in these patients. We evaluated the efficacy of PIs based on cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and positive psychology therapy (PPT) on clinical and laboratory outcomes in CAD. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials evaluating CBT or PPT in CAD patients published until May 2020 were systematically reviewed and analyzed. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, any cardiovascular event, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, coronary revascularization, angina, and readmission. Random effects meta-analyses using the inverse variance method were performed. Effects were expressed as risk ratios (RR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Twenty-five trials were included (n = 8119); 22 evaluating the effects of multi-component CBT (n = 7909), and three PPT (n = 210). Thirteen RCTs were at high risk of bias due to limitations in randomization or blinding. Compared with control groups any cardiovascular event (RR 0.82; 0.70 to 0.97; 5 studies), MI (RR 0.72; 0.52 to 0.98; 9 studies), and angina duration and intensity (SMD -0.64; -0.98 to -0.30; 4 studies; and -0.64; -1.17 to -0.11; 2 trials) were significantly reduced with PIs at the end of follow-up. PIs had no effect on other primary outcomes, laboratory or anthropometrical results and presented a moderate to high heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: CBT- and PPT-based PIs reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, MI and angina in patients with CAD. Future research should assess the individual role of CBT and PPT in CAD populations.

Efficacy of psychological interventions on psychological outcomes in coronary artery disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT) and positive psychology therapy (PPT) in patients with cardiovascular disease are still not well defined. We assessed the efficacy of CBT and PPT on psychological outcomes in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials evaluating CBT or PPT in CAD patients published until May 2018 were systematically analyzed. Primary outcomes were depression, stress, anxiety, anger, happiness, and vital satisfaction. Random effects meta-analyses using the inverse variance method were performed. Effects were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) or mean differences (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs); risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool. RESULTS: Nineteen trials were included (n = 1956); sixteen evaluated CBT (n = 1732), and three PPT (n = 224). Compared with control groups, depressive symptoms (13 trials; SMD -0.80; 95% CI -1.33 to -0.26), and anxiety (11 trials; SMD -1.26; 95% CI -2.11 to -0.41) improved after the PI, and depression (6 trials; SMD -2.08; 95% CI -3.22 to -0.94), anxiety (5 trials; SMD -1.33; 95% CI -2.38 to -0.29), and stress (3 trials; SMD -3.72; 95% CI -5.91 to -1.52) improved at the end of follow-up. Vital satisfaction was significantly increased at follow-up (MD 1.30, 0.27, 2.33). Non-significant effects on secondary outcomes were found. Subgroup analyses were consistent with overall analyses. CONCLUSION: CBT and PPT improve several psychological outcomes in CAD patients. Depression and anxiety improved immediately after the intervention while stress and vital satisfaction improve in the mid-term. Future research should assess the individual role of CBT and PPT in CAD populations.