ABC | Volume 111, Nº3, September 2018

Original Article Schmidt et al Anger and coronary artery disease in women Arq Bras Cardiol. 2018; 111(3):410-416 Table 1 – Clinical characteristics, medical history and STAXI scales according to the presence of coronary artery disease (CAD) Characteristics CAD n = 115 (45.1%) No CAD n = 140 (54.9%) Total: 255 p* Age (years), mean ± SD 61.0 ± 10.5 60.5 ± 9.7 0.65 White, n (%) 97 (85.1) 111 (79.9) 0.27 Married, n (%) 50 (43.5) 81 (57.9) 0.02 Schooling, years 6.2 ± 5.4 5.9 ±4.4 0.65 Current job, n (%) 26 (22.6) 28 (20.0) 0.61 Living alone, n (%) 28 (24.3) 32 (22.9) 0.78 Risk factors Hypertension, n (%) 102 (88.7) 120 (85.7) 0.48 DM, n (%) 41 (35.7) 20 (27.9) 0.18 Dyslipidemia, n (%) 7 1 (61.7) 73 (52.1) 0.12 Smoking, n (%) 28 (24.3) 23 (16.4) 0.11 Family history of CAD, n (%) 44 (38.3) 52 (37.1) 0.85 Depression, n (%) 38 (33.0) 55 (39.3) 0.30 BMI (kg/m 2 ), mean ± SD 27.6 ± 5.3 28.4 ± 6.0 0.25 Previous medical history Previous AMI, n (%) 30 (26.1) 27 (19.3) 0.19 Previous PCI, n (%) 19 (16.5) 11 (7.9) 0.03 Previous CABG, n (%) 9 (7.8) 0 (0.0) < 0.001 STAXI subscales Trait of anger (points), mean ± SD 20.0 ± 7.9 20.7 ± 8.5 0.54 Angry temperament (points), mean ± SD 8.6 ± 4.1 8.4 ± 4.0 0.69 Angry reaction (points), mean ± SD 8.0 ± 3.5 8.6 ± 4.2 0.20 Anger expression-In (points), mean ± SD 16.03 ± 4.26 16.6 ± 5.2 0.34 Anger expression-Out (points), mean ± SD 13.2 ± 4.6 12.9 ± 4.0 0.58 Control of anger (points), mean ± SD 26.2 ± 5.00 27.7 ± 3.7 < 0.001 Anger expression (points), mean ± SD 19.0 ± 10.3 17.8 ± 9.0 0.29 SD: standard deviation; p* - p≤ 0.05, Student t test or chi-square test; DM: diabetes mellitus; BMI: body mass index;AMI: acute myocardial infarction; PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention; CABG: coronary artery bypass grafting. Results FromNovember29,2009,tofebruary3,2010,255participants were included. Table 1 shows the results according to the presence of CAD, clinical history and different STAXI subscales. The patients with CAD most frequently had previous cardiac procedures (CABG and PCIp) and a lower mean level of anger control than patients without CAD, whomost oftenweremarried as compared to the former. Other risk factors, previous medical history and anger subscales showed no significant differences. The multiple logistic regression analysis (Table 2) identified a relationship betweenCADand lowanger control, previous CABG or PCI, and marital status. The patients were followed up for 48 [39-49] months to assess the occurrence of MCVE. From the initial sample of 255 patients, 10 women (3.9%) could not be reached, leaving 245 to participate in this study, 89 with anger control below the average range, and 156, over the average range. Table 3 shows the baseline characteristics of the patients regarding anger control, with 36.3% of the women with anger control below the average range and 63.7%, over the average range. Those with anger control below the average range were younger (58.1 ± 8.9 vs 62.2 ± 10.9, p < 0.001) and had a higher prevalence of family history of CAD (53.9% vs 29.5%, p < 0.001) than those whose control of anger was above the average range. Other characteristics, such as weight, diabetes, previous coronary events (AMI, PCI, CABG) and other risk factors did not differ between the two groups. However, the patients with anger control below the average range had a tendency towards lower prevalence of hypertension (p = 0.09) and previous CABG (p = 0.11). On logistic regression (Table 4), only age and the family history of CAD were predictors of poor anger control. Figure 1 shows no significant difference in event-free survival in patients with anger control below and above 27 points (p = 0.62). 412