Meta-analysis of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in patients with depression and coronary heart disease

The occurrence of depression in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) substantially increases the likelihood of a poorer cardiovascular prognosis. Although antidepressants are generally effective in decreasing depression, their use in patients with CHD is controversial. We carried out a meta-analysis to evaluate the health effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus placebo or no antidepressants in patients with CHD and depression. Observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trial Register and other trial registries, and references of relevant articles. Primary outcomes were readmission for CHD (including myocardial infarction, unstable angina, and stroke) and all-cause mortality; the secondary outcome was severity of depression symptoms. Seven articles on 6 RCTs involving 2,461 participants were included. One study incorrectly randomized participants, and another was a reanalysis of RCT data. These were considered observational and analyzed separately. When only properly randomized trials were considered (n = 734 patients), patients on SSRIs showed no significant differences in mortality (risk ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.08 to 2.01) or CHD readmission rates (0.74, 0.44 to 1.23) compared to controls. Conversely, when all studies were included, SSRI use was associated with a significant decrease in CHD readmission (0.63, 0.46 to 0.86) and mortality rates (0.56, 0.35 to 0.88). A significantly greater improvement in depression symptoms was always apparent in patients on SSRIs with all selected indicators. In conclusion, in patients with CHD and depression, SSRI medication decreases depression symptoms and may improve CHD prognosis.

The unruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment score: a multidisciplinary consensus.

OBJECTIVE We endeavored to develop an unruptured intracranial aneurysm (UIA) treatment score (UIATS) model that includes and quantifies key factors involved in clinical decision-making in the management of UIAs and to assess agreement for this model among specialists in UIA management and research. METHODS An international multidisciplinary (neurosurgery, neuroradiology, neurology, clinical epidemiology) group of 69 specialists was convened to develop and validate the UIATS model using a Delphi consensus. For internal (39 panel members involved in identification of relevant features) and external validation (30 independent external reviewers), 30 selected UIA cases were used to analyze agreement with UIATS management recommendations based on a 5-point Likert scale (5 indicating strong agreement). Interrater agreement (IRA) was assessed with standardized coefficients of dispersion (vr*) (vr* = 0 indicating excellent agreement and vr* = 1 indicating poor agreement). RESULTS The UIATS accounts for 29 key factors in UIA management. Agreement with UIATS (mean Likert scores) was 4.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1-4.3) per reviewer for both reviewer cohorts; agreement per case was 4.3 (95% CI 4.1-4.4) for panel members and 4.5 (95% CI 4.3-4.6) for external reviewers (p = 0.017). Mean Likert scores were 4.2 (95% CI 4.1-4.3) for interventional reviewers (n = 56) and 4.1 (95% CI 3.9-4.4) for noninterventional reviewers (n = 12) (p = 0.290). Overall IRA (vr*) for both cohorts was 0.026 (95% CI 0.019-0.033). CONCLUSIONS This novel UIA decision guidance study captures an excellent consensus among highly informed individuals on UIA management, irrespective of their underlying specialty. Clinicians can use the UIATS as a comprehensive mechanism for indicating how a large group of specialists might manage an individual patient with a UIA.