4.3 Editorial Material

Coronary Artery Spasm, Coronary Reactivity, and Their Psychological Context

期刊

PSYCHOSOMATIC MEDICINE
卷 81, 期 3, 页码 233-236

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PSY.0000000000000682

关键词

anxiety; coronary artery disease; coronary artery spasm; depression; women

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [K23HL105787, R01 HL109413, R01 HL125246, R01 HL136205, P01 HL101398]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Symptomatic individuals suspected of having myocardial ischemia often have no obstructive atherosclerotic narrowing of epicardial coronary arteries. Abnormal coronary vascular reactivity and, in particular, coronary artery vasospasm (CAS) may be an explanation in a subset of these patients. Psychological factors play an important role in ischemic heart disease, but their role in CAS is not clear; autonomic dysfunction and increased inflammation are two prevailing pathophysiological mechanisms implicated in abnormal coronary reactivity resulting from mental health conditions. Interrelationships between psychological factors, abnormal coronary reactivity, and sex/gender differences are poorly defined in the etiology of CAS. In this issue of Psychosomatic Medicine (2019;81:237-245), Hung et al. report a frequency of less than 0.1% of new-onset CAS in the Taiwanese population, with higher occurrence in women and younger individuals. Patients with CAS had a higher prevalence of previous anxiety and depression compared with those with coronary artery disease and controls, with no sex differences. In this editorial comment, we discuss the potential reasons for underreporting of CAS and the challenges regarding the use of administrative health records for psychosomatic research. In this editorial, a model is presented to explain the association between emotional stressors and mental health factors with CAS, including the role of sympathetic nervous system activation, inflammation, oxidative stress, endothelial dysfunction, and smooth muscle cell dysregulation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据