Depression, anxiety, and quality of life as predictors of rehospitalization in patients with chronic heart failure

Temporal evolution of anxiety and depression in chronic heart failure and its association with clinical outcome

BACKGROUND

Although anxiety and depression have been associated with adverse outcomes in chronic heart failure (HF), data on temporal evolution of these symptoms are scarce. We aimed to investigate the association between repeatedly measured depression and anxiety symptoms and clinical outcome in chronic HF patients.

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, outpatients with chronic HF were included and followed-up for a maximum of 2.5 years. The hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) questionnaire was conducted every six months. The primary endpoint was a composite of HF hospitalization, cardiovascular death, heart transplantation and left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. Cox and joint models were used to investigate the association between the HADS score and the endpoint.

RESULTS

A total of 362 patients filled out a median (25th-75th percentile) of 3 [2-4] questionnaires each. Mean ± SD age was 63 ± 13 years, 72% were men. Anxiety scores remained relatively stable leading up to the endpoint, while depression scores increased. Higher baseline depression scores were significantly associated with the endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] 1.68 and 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-2.36 per log(score+1), p = 0.003), while higher baseline anxiety scores did not reach statistical significance (HR [95% CI] 1.34 [0.99-1.83], p = 0.061). When repeatedly measured, both higher anxiety (HR [95% CI] 1.57[1.07-2.30], p = 0.022) and depression (HR [95% CI] 2.04 [1.39-3.06], p < 0.001) scores were significantly associated with the endpoint.

CONCLUSION

Serial measurements of depression and anxiety symptoms identify chronic HF patients with increased risk of adverse clinical outcomes. Screening for both disorders should be considered in clinical practice.

Comparison of quality of life in patients with mitral valve replacement and mitral valve repair in Imam Ali Hospital during 2014 to 2020: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

Mitral valve failure is one of the most common valvular heart diseases worldwide. Valve replacement and repair have an impact on the quality of life of patients. Therefore, the present study was conducted to compare the quality of life in patients with mitral valve replacement and those who underwent mitral valve repair.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we considered all cardiac patients with ischemic mitral insufficiency who underwent mitral valve repair and patients with a history of valve replacement in Imam Ali Hospital of Kermanshah between 2014 and 2020. Two Minnesota and general quality of life questionnaires along with a checklist for demographic variables were used for data collection. Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 21 software.

RESULTS

The mean quality of life score based on the general quality of life scale in the valve repair group was 32.33 (SD = 2.29) and in the valve replacement group 32.89(SD = 2.60), (p = 0.917). Also, mean quality of life, as measured by the Minnesota MLHFQ was 60.89(SD = 17.67) in the valve repair group and 63.42 (SD = 12.13) in the valve replacement group (p = 0.308). The results showed that the average general quality of life was different in study groups regarding education. Tukey's post hoc test showed that the average general quality of life in illiterate people is significantly lower than in people with academic degrees (P-value = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The quality of life of the patients in both the valve repair and replacement groups was at an average level. There was no significant difference between the general quality of life and the Minnesota scales, suggesting that both tools can be effectively used to measure patients' quality of life. The study's findings can be valuable for monitoring patients, screening for conditions, and enhancing communication between doctors and patients.

Comparative Effectiveness of Psychotherapy vs Antidepressants for Depression in Heart Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Heart failure (HF) affects more than 6 million adults in the US and more than 64 million adults worldwide, with 50% prevalence of depression. Patients and clinicians lack information on which interventions are more effective for depression in HF.

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of behavioral activation psychotherapy (BA) vs antidepressant medication management (MEDS) on patient-centered outcomes inpatients with HF and depression.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This pragmatic randomized comparative effectiveness trial was conducted from 2018 to 2022, including 1-year follow-up, at a not-for-profit academic health system serving more than 2 million people from diverse demographic, socioeconomic, cultural, and geographic backgrounds. Participant included inpatients and outpatients diagnosed with HF and depression, and data were analyzed as intention-to-treat. Data were analyzed from 2022 to 2023.

Interventions

BA is an evidence-based manualized treatment for depression, promoting engagement in personalized pleasurable activities selected by patients. MEDS involves the use of an evidence-based collaborative care model with care managers providing coordination with patients, psychiatrists, and primary care physicians to only administer medications.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was depressive symptom severity at 6 months, measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-Item (PHQ-9). Secondary outcomes included physical and mental health-related quality of life (HRQOL), measured using the Short-Form 12-Item version 2 (SF-12); heart failure-specific HRQOL, measured using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire; caregiver burden, measured with the Caregiver Burden Questionnaire for Heart Failure; emergency department visits; readmissions; days hospitalized; and mortality at 3, 6, and 12 months.

Results

A total of 416 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.71 [15.61] years; 243 [58.41%] male) were enrolled, with 208 patients randomized to BA and 208 patients randomized to MEDS. At baseline, mean (SD) PHQ-9 scores were 14.54 (3.45) in the BA group and 14.31 (3.60) in the MEDS group; both BA and MEDS recipients experienced nearly 50% reduction in depressive symptoms at 3, 6, and 12 months (eg, mean [SD] score at 12 months: BA, 7.62 (5.73); P < .001; MEDS, 7.98 (6.06); P < .001; between-group P = .55). There was no statistically significant difference between BA and MEDS in the primary outcome of PHQ-9 at 6 months (mean [SD] score, 7.53 [5.74] vs 8.09 [6.06]; P = .88). BA recipients, compared with MEDS recipients, experienced small improvement in physical HRQOL at 6 months (mean [SD] SF-12 physical score: 38.82 [11.09] vs 37.12 [10.99]; P = .04), had fewer ED visits (3 months: 38% [95% CI, 14%-55%] reduction; P = .005; 6 months: 30% [95% CI, 14%-40%] reduction; P = .008; 12 months: 27% [95% CI, 15%-38%] reduction; P = .001), and spent fewer days hospitalized (3 months: 17% [95% CI, 8%-25%] reduction; P = .002; 6 months: 19% [95% CI, 13%-25%] reduction; P = .005; 12 months: 36% [95% CI, 32%-40%] reduction; P = .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this comparative effectiveness trial of BA and MEDS in patients with HF experiencing depression, both treatments significantly reduced depressive symptoms by nearly 50% with no statistically significant differences between treatments. BA recipients experienced better physical HRQOL, fewer ED visits, and fewer days hospitalized. The study findings suggested that patients with HF could be given the choice between BA or MEDS to ameliorate depression.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03688100.