@phdthesis{Schneider2019,
  author    = {Schneider, Silvia Isabella},
  title     = {Operationstechniken zur Vermeidung des perioperativen Apoplex},
  doi       = {10.25972/OPUS-18393},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-183931},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Hintergrund: Der perioperative Schlaganfall gilt als eine der h{\"a}ufigsten Komplikationen bei herzchirurgischen Eingriffen. Durch die Manipulation der Aorta kann es zum L{\"o}sen von atherosklerotischer Plaque und zur Entstehung eines perioperativen neurologischen Defizites kommen. Methodik: 142 Patienten der Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg mit perioperativem Schlaganfall wurden untersucht (gesamte Op-Zahl: n = 9074). Abh{\"a}ngig von der Operationsmethode und dem Zeitraum wurden die Patienten in zwei Gruppen unterteilt. Bei 30 Patienten wurde die Herzoperation mittels MAC und ohne EAS durchgef{\"u}hrt, bei 112 Patienten mittels SAC und mit routinem{\"a}ßigem EAS. Diese beiden Kollektive wurden hinsichtlich des Auftretens von Schlaganf{\"a}llen miteinander verglichen. Ergebnisse: Das Risiko f{\"u}r einen perioperativen Schlaganfall lag mit MAC bei 2,03 \% (30/1481) und mit SAC und EAS bei 1,48 \% (112/7593; p = 0,148). Im Vergleich zur reinen Bypass- oder Klappenoperation war das Risiko bei einem kombinierten Eingriff signifikant erh{\"o}ht (p < 0,001). Zusammenfassung: Neuroprotektive Operationsmethoden wie die SAC und der EAS verringern das Risiko f{\"u}r einen perioperativen Schlaganfall, jedoch ist ein solcher multifaktoriell bedingt und die Operationsmethode kann nicht alleinig als Ausl{\"o}ser verantwortlich gemacht werden. Kombiniert intrakardiale und koronararterielle Eingriffe tragen zudem das h{\"o}chste Risiko f{\"u}r perioperative Insulte.},
  subject      = {Schlaganfall},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{PittigHeinigGoerigketal.2021,
  author    = {Pittig, Andre and Heinig, Ingmar and Goerigk, Stephan and Thiel, Freya and Hummel, Katrin and Scholl, Lucie and Deckert, J{\"u}rgen and Pauli, Paul and Domschke, Katharina and Lueken, Ulrike and Fydrich, Thomas and Fehm, Lydia and Plag, Jens and Str{\"o}hle, Andreas and Kircher, Tilo and Straube, Benjamin and Rief, Winfried and Koelkebeck, Katja and Arolt, Volker and Dannlowski, Udo and Margraf, J{\"u}rgen and Totzeck, Christina and Schneider, Silvia and Neudeck, Peter and Craske, Michelle G. and Hollandt, Maike and Richter, Jan and Hamm, Alfons and Wittchen, Hans-Ulrich},
  title     = {Efficacy of temporally intensified exposure for anxiety disorders: A multicenter randomized clinical trial},
  series = {Depression and Anxiety},
  volume    = {38},
  journal   = {Depression and Anxiety},
  number    = {11},
  doi       = {10.1002/da.23204},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-257331},
  pages     = {1169-1181},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background The need to optimize exposure treatments for anxiety disorders may be addressed by temporally intensified exposure sessions. Effects on symptom reduction and public health benefits should be examined across different anxiety disorders with comorbid conditions. Methods This multicenter randomized controlled trial compared two variants of prediction error-based exposure therapy (PeEx) in various anxiety disorders (both 12 sessions + 2 booster sessions, 100 min/session): temporally intensified exposure (PeEx-I) with exposure sessions condensed to 2 weeks (n = 358) and standard nonintensified exposure (PeEx-S) with weekly exposure sessions (n = 368). Primary outcomes were anxiety symptoms (pre, post, and 6-months follow-up). Secondary outcomes were global severity (across sessions), quality of life, disability days, and comorbid depression. Results Both treatments resulted in substantial improvements at post (PeEx-I: d\(_{within}\) = 1.50, PeEx-S: d\(_{within}\) = 1.78) and follow-up (PeEx-I: d\(_{within}\) = 2.34; PeEx-S: d\(_{within}\) = 2.03). Both groups showed formally equivalent symptom reduction at post and follow-up. However, time until response during treatment was 32\% shorter in PeEx-I (median = 68 days) than PeEx-S (108 days; TR\(_{PeEx-I}\)-I = 0.68). Interestingly, drop-out rates were lower during intensified exposure. PeEx-I was also superior in reducing disability days and improving quality of life at follow-up without increasing relapse. Conclusions Both treatment variants focusing on the transdiagnostic exposure-based violation of threat beliefs were effective in reducing symptom severity and disability in severe anxiety disorders. Temporally intensified exposure resulted in faster treatment response with substantial public health benefits and lower drop-out during the exposure phase, without higher relapse. Clinicians can expect better or at least comparable outcomes when delivering exposure in a temporally intensified manner.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RaynerColemanPurvesetal.2019,
  author    = {Rayner, Christopher and Coleman, Jonathan R. I. and Purves, Kirstin L. and Hodsoll, John and Goldsmith, Kimberley and Alpers, Georg W. and Andersson, Evelyn and Arolt, Volker and Boberg, Julia and B{\"o}gels, Susan and Creswell, Cathy and Cooper, Peter and Curtis, Charles and Deckert, J{\"u}rgen and Domschke, Katharina and El Alaoui, Samir and Fehm, Lydia and Fydrich, Thomas and Gerlach, Alexander L. and Grocholewski, Anja and Hahlweg, Kurt and Hamm, Alfons and Hedman, Erik and Heiervang, Einar R. and Hudson, Jennifer L. and J{\"o}hren, Peter and Keers, Robert and Kircher, Tilo and Lang, Thomas and Lavebratt, Catharina and Lee, Sang-hyuck and Lester, Kathryn J. and Lindefors, Nils and Margraf, J{\"u}rgen and Nauta, Maaike and Pan{\´e}-Farr{\´e}, Christiane A. and Pauli, Paul and Rapee, Ronald M. and Reif, Andreas and Rief, Winfried and Roberts, Susanna and Schalling, Martin and Schneider, Silvia and Silverman, Wendy K. and Str{\"o}hle, Andreas and Teismann, Tobias and Thastum, Mikael and Wannem{\"u}ller, Andre and Weber, Heike and Wittchen, Hans-Ulrich and Wolf, Christiane and R{\"u}ck, Christian and Breen, Gerome and Eley, Thalia C.},
  title     = {A genome-wide association meta-analysis of prognostic outcomes following cognitive behavioural therapy in individuals with anxiety and depressive disorders},
  series = {Translational Psychiatry},
  volume    = {9},
  journal   = {Translational Psychiatry},
  number    = {150},
  doi       = {10.1038/s41398-019-0481-y},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-225048},
  pages     = {1-13},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Major depressive disorder and the anxiety disorders are highly prevalent, disabling and moderately heritable. Depression and anxiety are also highly comorbid and have a strong genetic correlation (r(g) approximate to 1). Cognitive behavioural therapy is a leading evidence-based treatment but has variable outcomes. Currently, there are no strong predictors of outcome. Therapygenetics research aims to identify genetic predictors of prognosis following therapy. We performed genome-wide association meta-analyses of symptoms following cognitive behavioural therapy in adults with anxiety disorders (n = 972), adults with major depressive disorder (n = 832) and children with anxiety disorders (n = 920; meta-analysis n = 2724). We (h(SNP)(2)) and polygenic scoring was used to examine genetic associations between therapy outcomes and psychopathology, personality and estimated the variance in therapy outcomes that could be explained by common genetic variants learning. No single nucleotide polymorphisms were strongly associated with treatment outcomes. No significant estimate of h(SNP)(2) could be obtained, suggesting the heritability of therapy outcome is smaller than our analysis was powered to detect. Polygenic scoring failed to detect genetic overlap between therapy outcome and psychopathology, personality or learning. This study is the largest therapygenetics study to date. Results are consistent with previous, similarly powered genome-wide association studies of complex traits.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BiereKranzMaturaetal.2020,
  author    = {Biere, Silvia and Kranz, Thorsten M. and Matura, Silke and Petrova, Kristiyana and Streit, Fabian and Chiocchetti, Andreas G. and Grimm, Oliver and Brum, Murielle and Brunkhorst-Kanaan, Natalie and Oertel, Viola and Malyshau, Aliaksandr and Pfennig, Andrea and Bauer, Michael and Schulze, Thomas G. and Kittel-Schneider, Sarah and Reif, Andreas},
  title     = {Risk Stratification for Bipolar Disorder Using Polygenic Risk Scores Among Young High-Risk Adults},
  series = {Frontiers in Psychiatry},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Psychiatry},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyt.2020.552532},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-214976},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Objective: Identifying high-risk groups with an increased genetic liability for bipolar disorder (BD) will provide insights into the etiology of BD and contribute to early detection of BD. We used the BD polygenic risk score (PRS) derived from BD genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to explore how such genetic risk manifests in young, high-risk adults. We postulated that BD-PRS would be associated with risk factors for BD. Methods: A final sample of 185 young, high-risk German adults (aged 18-35 years) were grouped into three risk groups and compared to a healthy control group (n = 1,100). The risk groups comprised 117 cases with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), 45 with major depressive disorder (MDD), and 23 help-seeking adults with early recognition symptoms [ER: positive family history for BD, (sub)threshold affective symptomatology and/or mood swings, sleeping disorder]. BD-PRS was computed for each participant. Logistic regression models (controlling for sex, age, and the first five ancestry principal components) were used to assess associations of BD-PRS and the high-risk phenotypes. Results: We observed an association between BD-PRS and combined risk group status (OR = 1.48, p < 0.001), ADHD diagnosis (OR = 1.32, p = 0.009), MDD diagnosis (OR = 1.96, p < 0.001), and ER group status (OR = 1.7, p = 0.025; not significant after correction for multiple testing) compared to healthy controls. Conclusions: In the present study, increased genetic risk for BD was a significant predictor for MDD and ADHD status, but not for ER. These findings support an underlying shared risk for both MDD and BD as well as ADHD and BD. Improving our understanding of the underlying genetic architecture of these phenotypes may aid in early identification and risk stratification.},
  language  = {en}
}