General distress, hopelessness—suicidal ideation and worrying in adolescence: Concurrent and predictive validity of a symptom-level bifactor model for clinical diagnoses

BACKGROUND: Clinical disorders often share common symptoms and aetiological factors. Bifactor models acknowledge the role of an underlying general distress component and more specific sub-domains of psychopathology which specify the unique components of disorders over and above a general factor. METHODS: A bifactor model jointly calibrated data on subjective distress from The Mood and Feelings Questionnaire and the Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale. The bifactor model encompassed a general distress factor, and specific factors for (a) hopelessness-suicidal ideation, (b) generalised worrying and (c) restlessness-fatigue at age 14 which were related to lifetime clinical diagnoses established by interviews at ages 14 (concurrent validity) and current diagnoses at 17 years (predictive validity) in a British population sample of 1159 adolescents. RESULTS: Diagnostic interviews confirmed the validity of a symptom-level bifactor model. The underlying general distress factor was a powerful but non-specific predictor of affective, anxiety and behaviour disorders. The specific factors for hopelessness-suicidal ideation and generalised worrying contributed to predictive specificity. Hopelessness-suicidal ideation predicted concurrent and future affective disorder; generalised worrying predicted concurrent and future anxiety, specifically concurrent generalised anxiety disorders. Generalised worrying was negatively associated with behaviour disorders. LIMITATIONS: The analyses of gender differences and the prediction of specific disorders was limited due to a low frequency of disorders other than depression. CONCLUSIONS: The bifactor model was able to differentiate concurrent and predict future clinical diagnoses. This can inform the development of targeted as well as non-specific interventions for prevention and treatment of different disorders.

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main disease in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction the AMIS (Acute Myocardial Infarction in Switzerland) plus registry experience

This study sought to assess outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for unprotected left main (LM) disease.

Comparison of Newer-Generation Drug-Eluting With Bare-Metal Stents in Patients With Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Pooled Analysis of the EXAMINATION (clinical Evaluation of the Xience-V stent in Acute Myocardial INfArcTION) and COMFORTABLE-AMI (Comparison of Biolimus Eluted From an Erodible Stent Coating With Bare Metal Stents in Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) Trials

OBJECTIVES This study sought to study the efficacy and safety of newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in an appropriately powered population of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). BACKGROUND Among patients with STEMI, early generation DES improved efficacy but not safety compared with BMS. Newer-generation DES, everolimus-eluting stents, and biolimus A9-eluting stents, have been shown to improve clinical outcomes compared with early generation DES. METHODS Individual patient data for 2,665 STEMI patients enrolled in 2 large-scale randomized clinical trials comparing newer-generation DES with BMS were pooled: 1,326 patients received a newer-generation DES (everolimus-eluting stent or biolimus A9-eluting stent), whereas the remaining 1,329 patients received a BMS. Random-effects models were used to assess differences between the 2 groups for the device-oriented composite endpoint of cardiac death, target-vessel reinfarction, and target-lesion revascularization and the patient-oriented composite endpoint of all-cause death, any infarction, and any revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS Newer-generation DES substantially reduce the risk of the device-oriented composite endpoint compared with BMS at 1 year (relative risk [RR]: 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43 to 0.79; p = 0.0004). Similarly, the risk of the patient-oriented composite endpoint was lower with newer-generation DES than BMS (RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.96; p = 0.02). Differences in favor of newer-generation DES were driven by both a lower risk of repeat revascularization of the target lesion (RR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.52; p < 0.0001) and a lower risk of target-vessel infarction (RR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.92; p = 0.03). Newer-generation DES also reduced the risk of definite stent thrombosis (RR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.75; p = 0.006) compared with BMS. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with STEMI, newer-generation DES improve safety and efficacy compared with BMS throughout 1 year. It remains to be determined whether the differences in favor of newer-generation DES are sustained during long-term follow-up.