Why the study?
Does group psychological treatment reduce chest pain episodes and psychological morbidity in patients with continuing chest pain despite normal coronary arteries?
Does group psychological treatment reduce chest pain episodes and psychological morbidity in patients with continuing chest pain despite normal coronary arteries?
Group psychological treatment is feasible and effective in reducing pain, psychological morbidity, and disability in patients with non-cardiac chest pain.
May support psychological treatment for non-cardiac chest pain; hypothesis-generating pending randomized confirmation.
We used a psychological treatment package (education, relaxation, breathing training, graded exposure to activity and exercise, and challenging automatic thoughts about heart disease) to treat 60 patients who had continuing chest pain despite cardiological reassurance following haemodynamically normal angiography. The treatment was delivered in six sessions over eight weeks to groups of up to six patients. The patients kept daily records of chest pain episode frequency and nitrate use. Questionnaires were used to assess anxiety, depression and disability. Exercise tolerance was tested by treadmill electrocardiography, with capnographic assessment of hyperventilation. The results were compared with waiting-list controls. Treatment significantly reduced chest pain episodes (p < 0.01) from median 6.5 to 2.5 per week. There were significant improvements in anxiety and depression scores (p < 0.05), disability rating (p < 0.0001) and exercise tolerance (p < 0.05), and these were maintained at six month follow-up. Treatment reduced the prevalence of hyperventilation from 54% to 34% (p < 0.01) but not the prevalence of ECG-positive exercise tests. Patients continuing to attribute their pain to heart disease had poorer outcomes. Group psychological treatment for non-cardiac chest pain is feasible, reduces pain, psychological morbidity and disability, and improves exercise tolerance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stephen Potts (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: