Comparison of the effect of eye movement desensitization reprocessing and cognitive behavioral therapy on anxiety in patients with myocardial infarction

Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) treatment in the medical setting: a systematic review

Background: Literature points towards the potential benefits of the application of Eye Movement and Desensitization Processing (EMDR)-therapy for patients in the medical setting, with cancer and pain being among the domains it is applied to. The field of applying EMDR-therapy for patients treated in the medical setting has evolved to such an extent that it may be challenging to get a comprehensive overview.Objective: This systematic literature review aims to evaluate the use and effectiveness of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy in patients treated in the medical setting.Methods: We performed a literature search following the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if the effectiveness of EMDR-therapy was assessed in adult patients treated in a medical setting. Excluded were patients exclusively suffering from a mental health disorder, without somatic comorbidity. A risk of bias analysis was performed. This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022325238).Results: Eighty-seven studies, of which 26 (pilot)-RCTs were included and categorized in 14 medical domains. Additionally, three studies focusing on persistent physical complaints were included. Most evidence exists for its application in the fields of oncology, pain, and neurology. The overall appraisal of these studies showed at least moderate to high risks of bias. EMDR demonstrated effectiveness in reducing symptoms in 85 out of 87 studies. Notably, the occurrence of adverse events was rarely mentioned.Conclusions: Overall, outcomes seem to show beneficial effects of EMDR on reducing psychological and physical symptoms in patients treated in a medical setting. Due to the heterogeneity of reported outcomes, effect sizes could not be pooled. Due to the high risk of bias of the included studies, our results should be interpreted with caution and further controlled high-quality research is needed.

Psychological interventions for depression and anxiety in patients with coronary heart disease, heart failure or atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Depression and anxiety occur frequently (with reported prevalence rates of around 40%) in individuals with coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF) or atrial fibrillation (AF) and are associated with a poor prognosis, such as decreased health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and increased morbidity and mortality. Psychological interventions are developed and delivered by psychologists or specifically trained healthcare workers and commonly include cognitive behavioural therapies and mindfulness-based stress reduction. They have been shown to reduce depression and anxiety in the general population, though the exact mechanism of action is not well understood. Further, their effects on psychological and clinical outcomes in patients with CHD, HF or AF are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychological interventions (alone, or with cardiac rehabilitation or pharmacotherapy, or both) in adults who have a diagnosis of CHD, HF or AF, compared to no psychological intervention, on psychological and clinical outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2009 to July 2022. We also searched three clinical trials registers in September 2020, and checked the reference lists of included studies. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychological interventions with no psychological intervention for a minimum of six months follow-up in adults aged over 18 years with a clinical diagnosis of CHD, HF or AF, with or without depression or anxiety. Studies had to report on either depression or anxiety or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were depression and anxiety, and our secondary outcomes of interest were HRQoL mental and physical components, all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one studies (2591 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Sixteen studies included people with CHD, five with HF and none with AF. Study sample sizes ranged from 29 to 430. Twenty and 17 studies reported the primary outcomes of depression and anxiety, respectively. Despite the high heterogeneity and variation, we decided to pool the studies using a random-effects model, recognising that the model does not eliminate heterogeneity and findings should be interpreted cautiously. We found that psychological interventions probably have a moderate effect on reducing depression (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.65 to -0.06; 20 studies, 2531 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and anxiety (SMD -0.57, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.18; 17 studies, 2235 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), compared to no psychological intervention. Psychological interventions may have little to no effect on HRQoL physical component summary scores (PCS) (SMD 0.48, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.98; 12 studies, 1454 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may have a moderate effect on improving HRQoL mental component summary scores (MCS) (SMD 0.63, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.26; 12 studies, 1454 participants; low-certainty evidence), compared to no psychological intervention. Psychological interventions probably have little to no effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.69; 3 studies, 615 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may have little to no effect on MACE (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.92; 4 studies, 450 participants; low-certainty evidence), compared to no psychological intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that psychological interventions for depression and anxiety probably result in a moderate reduction in depression and anxiety and may result in a moderate improvement in HRQoL MCS, compared to no intervention. However, they may have little to no effect on HRQoL PCS and MACE, and probably do not reduce mortality (all-cause) in adults who have a diagnosis of CHD or HF, compared with no psychological intervention. There was moderate to substantial heterogeneity identified across studies. Thus, evidence of treatment effects on these outcomes warrants careful interpretation. As there were no studies of psychological interventions for patients with AF included in our review, this is a gap that needs to be addressed in future studies, particularly in view of the rapid growth of research on management of AF. Studies investigating cost-effectiveness, return to work and cardiovascular morbidity (revascularisation) are also needed to better understand the benefits of psychological interventions in populations with heart disease.

Interventions Targeted to Address Social Determinants of Health in Ischemic Heart Disease: A Sex- and Gender-Oriented Scoping Review

The burden of ischemic heart disease (IHD) is a major health problem worldwide. The detrimental effect of gendered (ie, unevenly distributed between female and male) socioeconomic determinants of health (SDOH) on outcomes has been demonstrated, more so in female individuals. Therefore, addressing SDOH is a priority for the care implementation of patients with IHD. We conducted a scoping review to identify the types of SDOH-tailored interventions tested in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) among IHD patients, and whether the reporting of findings was sex-unbiased. We identified 8 SDOH domains: education, physical environment, health care system, economic stability, social support, sexual orientation, culture/language, and systemic racism. A total of 28 RCTs (2 ongoing) were evaluated. Since the 1990s, 26 RCTs have been conducted, mainly in the Middle East and Asia, and addressed only education, physical environment, health care system, and social support. The 77% of studies focused on patient-education interventions, and around 80% on SDOH-based interventions achieved positive effects on a variety of primary outcome(s). Among the limitations of the conducted RCTs, the most relevant were an overall low participation of female and racial/ethnical minority participants, a lack of sex-stratified analyses, and a missing opportunity of tailoring some SDOH interventions relevant for health. The SDOH-tailored interventions tested so far in RCTs, enrolling predominantly male patients and mainly targeting education and health literacy, were effective in improving outcomes among patients with IHD. Future studies should focus on a wider range of SDOH with an adequate representation of female and minority patients who would most benefit from such interventions.

Effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy-based interventions on health outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based intervention on health outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) has been recognized in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but no comprehensive systematic review has been conducted. To address this research gap, our study aimed to evaluate whether comprehensive CBT-based interventions positively affect health outcomes in CHD patients. It was hypothesized that CBT-based interventions are effective in: (1) Reducing depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms; (2) Reducing body mass index, blood pressure, and lipid levels; and (3) Improving quality of life, and exercise endurance.

AIM

To verify the effectiveness of CBT-based interventions on CHD patients through a meta-analysis of previous publications.

METHODS

Relevant RCTs published in English were obtained by searching electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Proquest, with the retrieval time from inception to August 2020. The primary outcomes were psychological factors (depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms), physiological factors (body mass index, blood pressure, blood lipids). The secondary outcomes included quality of life and exercise endurance. We used Review Manager 5.3 to conduct the meta-analysis and used the Physiotherapy Evidence Database tool to evaluate the quality of studies.

RESULTS

A total of 22 RCTs comprising 4991 patients with CHD were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The main analysis revealed that CBT-based intervention can reduce depression symptoms: -2.00 [95% confidence interval (CI): -2.83 to -1.16, P < 0.001]; anxiety symptoms: -2.07 (95%CI: -3.39 to -0.75, P = 0.002); stress symptoms: -3.33 (95%CI: -4.23 to -2.44, P < 0.001); body mass index: -0.47 (95%CI: -0.81 to -0.13, P = 0.006); and improve physical functioning: 3.36 (95%CI: 1.63 to 5.10, P = 0.000) and mental functioning: 6.91 (95%CI: 4.10 to 9.73, P < 0.001). Moreover, subgroup analysis results showed that CBT-based interventions were more effective for symptoms of depression and anxiety in CHD patients when individual, as opposed to group treatment, and psycho-education, behavioral and cognitive strategies were applied as the core treatment approaches.

CONCLUSION

CBT-based interventions are effective treatment strategies for CHD patients, significantly improving their symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress, body mass index, and health-related quality of life.

Efficacy of EMDR Therapy on the Pain Intensity and Subjective Distress of Cancer Patients

The present study was carried out to investigate the efficacy of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy in treating pain and subjective distress of patients with cancer. A randomized controlled trial was performed on patients with cancer suffering from moderate to severe cancer pain in Yasuj, Iran, in 2019 and 2020. Sixty patients aged 30–60 years who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were selected using a consensus sampling technique. Patients were randomly assigned to EMDR therapy or control groups based on random block allocation. EMDR therapy was administered in six to eight daily 1-hour sessions. The control group received the standard treatment provided by the hospital. A Numeric Pain-Rating Scale (NRS) and the Subjective Units of Disturbance Scale (SUDS) were used to assess pain and subjective distress before and after the intervention in each session. The collected data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, chi-square test, and independent t test using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 24. The mean pain intensity and subjective distress score in the experimental group before and after the EMDR intervention were significantly reduced (p < .001). In the control group, no decreases in NRS and SUDS scores occurred at any time (p > .05). Differences in pain scores between the groups were statistically significant (p < .001). EMDR can effectively and sustainably reduce the pain and subjective distress experienced by patients with cancer. Thus, EMDR is a recommended therapeutic option to mitigate pain and subjective distress among patients with cancer.

The effectiveness of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing toward anxiety disorder: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) has been well established as an effective treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, PTSD has been re-categorized as part of trauma and stressor-related disorders instead of anxiety disorders. We conducted the first meta-analysis on Randomized Controlled Trials to evaluate the effectiveness of EMDR on reducing symptoms of anxiety disorders.

METHODS

A manual and systematic search using various databases and reference lists of systematic review articles published up to December 2018 was conducted. The symptoms of anxiety, phobia, panic, traumatic feelings and behaviors/somatic symptoms were examined. Hedges' g effect sizes were computed, and random effect models were used for all analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 17 trials with 647 participants were included in this meta-analysis. EMDR was associated with a significant reduction of anxiety (g = -0.71; 95% CI: -0.96 to -0.47), panic (g = -0.62; 95% CI: -1.10 to -0.14), phobia (g = -0.45; 95% CI: -0.81 to -0.08), behavioural/somatic symptoms (g = -0.40; 95% CI: -0.63 to -0.12), but not traumatic feelings (g = -0.48; 95% CI: -1.14 to -0.18). Subgroup analysis revealed greater effects of EMDR if compared to passive control. However, the effects were not significantly different based on the duration, number of therapy sessions, or the number of weekly sessions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis indicates that EMDR is efficacious for reducing symptoms of anxiety, panic, phobia, and behavioural/somatic symptoms. Further research is needed to explore EMDR's long term efficacy on anxiety disorders.