Why the study?
Does a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction increase state and trait anxiety compared to non-MI chest pain admissions?
Does a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction increase state and trait anxiety compared to non-MI chest pain admissions?
Patients surviving an acute MI experience higher state anxiety than those admitted with non-MI chest pain, highlighting the potential need for liaison psychology services in coronary care units.
State anxiety was associated with MI; hypothesis-generating and leaves open causality, timing, and need for prospective studies.
Measures of state anxiety (visual analogue scales) and trait anxiety (the Neuroticism scale of the EPI) were examined in 120 survivors of acute MI and in a further 40 persons admitted to coronary care with chest pain but failing to attract a diagnosis of MI. Results indicated that state anxiety responses to coronary care admission were modulated by a neurotic predisposition, for both groups of patients. Those patients aware that they had sustained a MI were higher on measures of state anxiety than those whose discharge from coronary care was accompanied by the information that their chest pain had not signalled a heart attack, but trait anxiety failed to distinguish the two groups. Among those who had sustained a MI, women reported greater state anxiety than men but were not significantly higher on the measure of trait anxiety. It was suggested that the former difference might be explained by sex‐role related tendencies in the reporting of emotional states. The finding that a neurotic predisposition appeared to modulate state anxiety responses to MI was discussed in terms of the possible role of liaison psychology services to coronary care units. In this respect it was suggested that an awareness of psychological responses to past crises may sensitize coronary care medical staff to those patients most at risk of an adverse emotional response to the present crisis (MI), and so facilitate rapid referral to liaison psychology services for intervention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
D. G. Byrne (1979) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: