| 1. |
- Ammirati, Enrico, et al.
(author)
-
Acute Myocarditis Associated With Desmosomal Gene Variants
- 2022
-
In: JACC. Heart failure. - : ELSEVIER SCI LTD. - 2213-1779 .- 2213-1787. ; 10:10, s. 714-727
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND The risk of adverse cardiovascular events in patients with acute myocarditis (AM) and desmosomal gene variants (DGV) remains unknown.OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to ascertain the risk of death, ventricular arrhythmias, recurrent myocarditis, and heart failure (main endpoint) in patients with AM and pathogenic or likely pathogenetic DGV.METHODS In a retrospective international study from 23 hospitals, 97 patients were included: 36 with AM and DGV (DGV[+]), 25 with AM and negative gene testing (DGV[-]), and 36 with AM without genetics testing. All patients had troponin elevation plus findings consistent with AM on histology or at cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). In 86 patients, CMR changes in function and structure were re-assessed at follow-up.RESULTS In the DGV(+) AM group (88.9% DSP variants), median age was 24 years, 91.7% presented with chest pain, and median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 56% on CMR (P = NS vs the other 2 groups). Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated a higher risk of the main endpoint in DGV(+) AM compared with DGV(-) and without genetics testing patients (62.3% vs 17.5% vs 5.3% at 5 years, respectively; P < 0.0001), driven by myocarditis recurrence and ventricular arrhythmias. At follow-up CMR, a higher number of late gadolinium enhanced segments was found in DGV(+) AM. CONCLUSIONS Patients with AM and evidence of DGV have a higher incidence of adverse cardiovascular events compared with patients with AM without DGV. Further prospective studies are needed to ascertain if genetic testing might improve risk stratification of patients with AM who are considered at low risk. (J Am Coll Cardiol HF 2022;10:714-727) (c) 2022 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
|
|
| 2. |
- Smyth, Joshua M., et al.
(author)
-
Everyday stress response targets in the science of behavior change
- 2018
-
In: Behaviour Research and Therapy. - : Elsevier. - 0005-7967 .- 1873-622X. ; 101, s. 20-29
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Stress is an established risk factor for negative health outcomes, and responses to everyday stress can interfere with health behaviors such as exercise and sleep. In accordance with the Science of Behavior Change (SOBC) program, we apply an experimental medicine approach to identifying stress response targets, developing stress response assays, intervening upon these targets, and testing intervention effectiveness. We evaluate an ecologically valid, within-person approach to measuring the deleterious effects of everyday stress on physical activity and sleep patterns, examining multiple stress response components (i.e., stress reactivity, stress recovery, and stress pile-up) as indexed by two key response indicators (negative affect and perseverative cognition). Our everyday stress response assay thus measures multiple malleable stress response targets that putatively shape daily health behaviors (physical activity and sleep). We hypothesize that larger reactivity, incomplete recovery, and more frequent stress responses (pile-up) will negatively impact health behavior enactment in daily life. We will identify stress-related reactivity, recovery, and response in the indicators using coordinated analyses across multiple naturalistic studies. These results are the basis for developing a new stress assay and replicating the initial findings in a new sample. This approach will advance our understanding of how specific aspects of everyday stress responses influence health behaviors, and can be used to develop and test an innovative ambulatory intervention for stress reduction in daily life to enhance health behaviors. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 3. |
- Zawadzki, Matthew J., et al.
(author)
-
Understanding stress reports in daily life : a coordinated analysis of factors associated with the frequency of reporting stress
- 2019
-
In: Journal of behavioral medicine. - : Springer. - 0160-7715 .- 1573-3521. ; 42:3, s. 545-560
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Although stress is a common experience in everyday life, a clear understanding of how often an individual experiences and reports stress is lacking. Notably, there is little information regarding factors that may influence how frequently stress is reported, including which stress dimension is measured (i.e., stressorsdid an event happen, subjective stresshow stressed do you feel, conditional stresshow stressful a stressor was) and the temporal features of that assessment (i.e., time of day, day of study, weekday vs. weekend day). The purpose of the present study was to conduct a coordinated analysis of five independent ecological momentary assessment studies utilizing varied stress reporting dimensions and temporal features. Results indicated that, within days, stress was reported at different frequencies depending on the stress dimension. Stressors were reported on 15-32% of momentary reports made within a day; across days, the frequency ranged from 42 to 76% of days. Depending on the cutoff, subjective stress was reported more frequently ranging about 8-56% of all moments within days, and 40-90% of days. Likewise, conditional stress ranged from just 3% of moments to 22%, and 11-69% of days. For the temporal features, stress was reported more frequently on weekdays (compared to weekend days) and on days earlier in the study (relative to days later in the study); time of day was inconsistently related to stress reports. In sum, stress report frequency depends in part on how stress is assessed. As such, researchers may wish to measure stress in multiple ways and, in the case of subjective and conditional stress with multiple operational definitions, to thoroughly characterize the frequency of stress reporting.
|
|
