Quality of life and psychological impact in patients with noncardiac chest pain.

BACKGROUND: Chest pain is common and data regarding noncardiac chest pain (NCCP) in Asia are lacking. AIM: To determine the differences in clinical presentations, psychologic impact, and quality of life between patients with NCCP and cardiac chest pain (CCP), and to identify any factors that impacted on these patients. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing coronary angiography for the evaluation of chest pain were recruited in Hong Kong and Wuhan, China. One hundred and forty patients with abnormal and 141 patients with normal angiography were included in the study. The validated gastroesophageal reflux disease questionnaire, the Hospital Anxiety-Depression Scale, and the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) were used for assessment. RESULTS: NCCP patients reported similar days-off work and impairment of their social life compared with those with CCP. No difference was found in the anxiety and depression scores between the 2 groups. NCCP patients with reflux symptoms had higher anxiety score (7.19 vs. 5.74, P=0.044), reported more interruption of their social life (26% vs. 5%, P<0.0001), and had taken more sick leaves (17% vs. 5%, P=0.018) compared with those without gastroesophageal reflux disease. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of life and psychologic impact of patients with NCCP were as significant as those with CCP. NCCP patients with reflux symptoms were more anxious and were impaired in their productivity and social life.

Familial aggregation in constipated subjects in a tertiary referral center.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical observation showed that there is family aggregation in constipated subjects, but formal data are lacking. This prompted us to conduct a formal family study in constipated subjects. METHODS: Constipated subjects (probands) were identified according to the Rome II and Chinese constipation questionnaire criteria, healthy subjects were chosen as controls. Living first-degree relatives (parents, siblings, and children) and spouses (as internal controls) from both groups were identified. The questionnaire on Rome II criteria was given to the relatives either through the index subjects or by mail. The questionnaire was received by mailing back or through the index subjects. Any nonresponders were chased. RESULTS: There were 132 probands with constipation and 114 controls. The Rome II questionnaire was sent to a total of 677 relatives of the probands and 591 of the controls. Relatives were comparable in mean age, sex distribution, family size, and marital status in the two groups. Constipation prevalence was 16.4% in probands' relatives versus 9.1% in controls' relatives, i.e., 13% in the relatives from both proband and controls. Among the constipated relatives, 6.3%versus 9.3% of the relatives were spouses of the probands and controls (P = 0.5). Subjects with more family members having constipation will have higher risk of constipation: OR 2.02, CI 1.14-3.65, P = 0.0177 for at least one family member; OR 3.99, CI 1.86-9.23, P = 0.0006 for at least two family members. CONCLUSIONS: Familial aggregation of constipation occurs, supporting a genetic or intrafamilial environment component.