@article{LadwigLederbogenAlbusetal.2014,
  author    = {Ladwig, Karl-Heinz and Lederbogen, Florian and Albus, Christian and Angermann, Christiane and Borggrefe, Martin and Fischer, Denise and Fritzsche, Kurt and Haass, Markus and Jordan, Jochen and J{\"u}nger, Jana and Kindermann, Ingrid and K{\"o}llner, Volker and Kuhn, Bernhard and Scherer, Martin and Seyfarth, Melchior and V{\"o}ller, Heinz and Waller, Christiane and Herrmann-Lingen, Christoph},
  title     = {Position paper on the importance of psychosocial factors in cardiology: Update 2013},
  series = {GMS German Medical Science},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {GMS German Medical Science},
  doi       = {10.3205/000194},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-121196},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {Background: The rapid progress of psychosomatic research in cardiology and also the increasing impact of psychosocial issues in the clinical daily routine have prompted the Clinical Commission of the German Heart Society (DGK) to agree to an update of the first state of the art paper on this issue which was originally released in 2008. Methods: The circle of experts was increased, general aspects were implemented and the state of the art was updated. Particular emphasis was dedicated to coronary heart diseases (CHD), heart rhythm diseases and heart failure because to date the evidence-based clinical knowledge is most advanced in these particular areas. Differences between men and women and over the life span were considered in the recommendations as were influences of cognitive capability and the interactive and synergistic impact of classical somatic risk factors on the affective comorbidity in heart disease patients. Results: A IA recommendation (recommendation grade I and evidence grade A) was given for the need to consider psychosocial risk factors in the estimation of coronary risks as etiological and prognostic risk factors. Furthermore, for the recommendation to routinely integrate psychosocial patient management into the care of heart surgery patients because in these patients, comorbid affective disorders (e.g. depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder) are highly prevalent and often have a malignant prognosis. A IB recommendation was given for the treatment of psychosocial risk factors aiming to prevent the onset of CHD, particularly if the psychosocial risk factor is harmful in itself (e.g. depression) or constrains the treatment of the somatic risk factors. Patients with acute and chronic CHD should be offered anti-depressive medication if these patients suffer from medium to severe states of depression and in this case medication with selective reuptake inhibitors should be given. In the long-term course of treatment with implanted cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) a subjective health technology assessment is warranted. In particular, the likelihood of affective comorbidities and the onset of psychological crises should be carefully considered. Conclusions: The present state of the art paper presents an update of current empirical evidence in psychocardiology. The paper provides evidence-based recommendations for the integration of psychosocial factors into cardiological practice and highlights areas of high priority. The evidence for estimating the efficiency for psychotherapeutic and psychopharmacological interventions has increased substantially since the first release of the policy document but is, however, still weak. There remains an urgent need to establish curricula for physician competence in psychodiagnosis, communication and referral to ensure that current psychocardiac knowledge is translated into the daily routine.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{VolkertZierhutSchieleetal.2014,
  author    = {Volkert, Julia and Zierhut, Kathrin C. and Schiele, Miriam A. and Wenzel, Martina and Kopf, Juliane and Kittel-Schneider, Sarah and Reif, Andreas},
  title     = {Predominant polarity in bipolar disorder and validation of the polarity index in a German sample},
  doi       = {10.1186/s12888-014-0322-8},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-111042},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {Background: A large number of patients with bipolar disorder (BD) can be characterized by predominant polarity (PP), which has important implications for relapse prevention. Recently, Popovic et al. (EUR NEUROPSYCHOPHARM 22(5): 339-346, 2012) proposed the Polarity Index (PI) as a helpful tool in the maintenance treatment of BD. As a numeric expression, it reflects the efficacy of drugs used in treatment of BD. In the present retrospective study, we aimed to validate this Index in a large and well characterized German bipolar sample. Methods: We investigated 336 bipolar patients (BP) according to their PP and calculated the PI for each patient in order to prove if maintenance treatment differs according to their PP. Furthermore, we analysed whether PP is associated with demographic and clinical characteristics of BP. Results: In our sample, 63.9\% of patients fulfilled criteria of PP: 169 patients were classified as depressive predominant polarity (DPP), 46 patients as manic predominant polarity (MPP). The two groups differed significantly in their drug regime: Patients with DPP were more often medicated with lamotrigine and antidepressants, patients with MPP were more often treated with lithium, valproate, carbamazepine and first generation antipsychotics. However, patients with DPP and MPP did not differ significantly with respect to the PI, although they received evidence-based and guideline-driven treatment. Conclusion: The reason for this negative finding might well be that for several drugs, which were used frequently, no PI value is available. Nevertheless we suggest PP as an important concept in the planning of BD maintenance treatment.},
  language  = {en}
}