A Comparison of Social Exclusion Towards People with Depression or Chronic Back Pain.

Objectives: Research comparing mental and physical health stigma is scarce. The aim of this study was to compare social exclusion towards hypothetical males and females with depression or chronic back pain. Furthermore, the study investigated whether social exclusion is associated with participant's empathy and personality traits, while controlling for their sex, age and personal exposure to mental/physical chronic health conditions. Design: This study employed a cross-sectional questionnaire design. Methods: Participants (N = 253) completed an online vignette-based questionnaire and were randomly allocated to either a depression or chronic back pain study condition. Measures of social exclusion through respondents' willingness to interact with hypothetical individuals, empathy and the Big Five personality traits were completed. Results: Willingness to interact scores did not significantly differ depending on the diagnosis or sex of the hypothetical person in the vignette. For depression, higher levels of conscientiousness significantly predicted less willingness to interact. Whilst being a female participant and having higher empathy significantly predicted greater willingness to interact. For chronic back pain, higher empathy significantly predicted greater willingness to interact, with no significant predictors found from the Big Five personality traits. Conclusion: Findings indicate that females and males with depression or chronic back pain face similar levels of social exclusion, with empathy being a core variable driving social exclusion behaviours. These findings enhance our understanding of potential variables driving social exclusion, in-turn informing campaign development to reduce public stigma towards depression and chronic back pain.

Outcomes following PCI in CABG candidates during the COVID-19 pandemic: The prospective multicentre UK-ReVasc registry.

OBJECTIVES: To describe outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients who would usually have undergone coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom, cardiac surgery for coronary artery disease (CAD) was dramatically reduced during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many patients with "surgical disease" instead underwent PCI. METHODS: Between 1 March 2020 and 31 July 2020, 215 patients with recognized "surgical" CAD who underwent PCI were enrolled in the prospective UK-ReVasc Registry (ReVR). 30-day major cardiovascular event outcomes were collected. Findings in ReVR patients were directly compared to reference PCI and isolated CABG pre-COVID-19 data from British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) and National Cardiac Audit Programme (NCAP) databases. RESULTS: ReVR patients had higher incidence of diabetes (34.4% vs 26.4%, P = .008), multi-vessel disease with left main stem disease (51.4% vs 3.0%, P < .001) and left anterior descending artery involvement (94.8% vs 67.2%, P < .001) compared to BCIS data. SYNTAX Score in ReVR was high (mean 28.0). Increased use of transradial access (93.3% vs 88.6%, P = .03), intracoronary imaging (43.6% vs 14.4%, P < .001) and calcium modification (23.6% vs 3.5%, P < .001) was observed. No difference in in-hospital mortality was demonstrated compared to PCI and CABG data (ReVR 1.4% vs BCIS 0.7%, P = .19; vs NCAP 1.0%, P = .48). Inpatient stay was half compared to CABG (3.0 vs 6.0 days). Low-event rates in ReVR were maintained to 30-day follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: PCI undertaken using contemporary techniques produces excellent short-term results in patients who would be otherwise CABG candidates. Longer-term follow-up is essential to determine whether these outcomes are maintained over time.