Why the study?
Does cardiovascular reactivity to mental stress differ between women with and without coronary heart disease?
Does cardiovascular reactivity to mental stress differ between women with and without coronary heart disease?
Women with a recent acute coronary event exhibit blunted heart rate reactivity to mental stress compared to healthy matched controls.
Blunted HR reactivity to mental stress in post-ACS women should not change practice; leaves open its prognostic value and mechanistic role.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the ability of mental stress testing to discriminate between women with and without CHD, and among women with different disease manifestations, taking into account history of hypertension and beta-blocker use. METHODS: Analyses were based on data from a community-based case-control study of women aged 65 years or younger. The study group consisted of 292 women who were hospitalized for an acute event of CHD, either AMI or unstable AP in Stockholm between 1991 and 1994. Controls were matched to cases by age and catchment area. Cardiovascular reactivity and emotional response to an anagram task solved under time pressure were measured 3 to 6 months after hospitalization. RESULTS: Patients reacted with smaller increases in heart rate (4 bpm) than their controls (7 bpm). Results for the rate-pressure product were similar. Cardiovascular reactions did not distinguish patients with AP from those with AMI. History of hypertension (present in 50% of patients and 11% of controls) was related to enhanced diastolic blood pressure reactivity. Patients on beta-blockers (66%) had lower heart-rate levels throughout testing, but did not differ in their cardiovascular stress reactions when compared with the remaining participants. CONCLUSIONS: Women with heart disease have somewhat lower heart-rate responses to stress than healthy age-matched controls. History of hypertension is related to enhanced diastolic blood pressure reactivity to mental stress in both patients and controls.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Weidner et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: