This article describes a meta-analysis of published associations between depression and heart failure (HF) in regard to 3 questions: 1) What is the prevalence of depression among patients with HF? 2) What is the magnitude of the relationship between depression and clinical outcomes in the HF population? 3) What is the evidence for treatment effectiveness in reducing depression in HF patients? Key word searches of the Medline and PsycInfo databases, as well as reference searches in published HF and depression articles, identified 36 publications meeting our criteria. Clinically significant depression was present in 21.5% of HF patients, and varied by the use of questionnaires versus diagnostic interview (33.6% and 19.3%, respectively) and New York Heart Association-defined HF severity (11% in class I vs. 42% in class IV), among other factors. Combined results suggested higher rates of death and secondary events (risk ratio = 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 2.6), trends toward increased health care use, and higher rates of hospitalization and emergency room visits among depressed patients. Treatment studies generally relied on small samples, but also suggested depression symptom reductions from a variety of interventions. In sum, clinically significant depression is present in at least 1 in 5 patients with HF; however, depression rates can be much higher among patients screened with questionnaires or with more advanced HF. The relationship between depression and poorer HF outcomes is consistent and strong across multiple end points. These findings reinforce the importance of psychosocial research in HF populations and identify a number of areas for future study.

Among patients with CHD, mental health treatments and cardiac rehabilitation may each reduce depression and CHD events, whereas cardiac rehabilitation is superior for reducing total mortality risk. The results support a continued role for mental health treatments and a larger role for mental health professionals in cardiac rehabilitation.

Background Epidemiological studies reveal that individuals who report risky substance use are generally less likely to meet physical activity guidelines (with the exception of certain population segments, such as adolescents and athletes). A growing body of evidence suggests that individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) are interested in exercising and that they may derive benefits from regular exercise, in terms of both general health/fitness and SUD recovery. Objectives The aims of this paper were to: (i) summarize the research examining the effects of exercise-based treatments for SUDs; (ii) discuss the theoretical mechanisms and practical reasons for investigating this topic; (iii) identify the outstanding relevant research questions that warrant further inquiry; and (iv) describe potential implications for practice. Methods The following databases were searched for peer-reviewed original and review papers on the topic of substance use and exercise: PubMed Central, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL Plus. Reference lists of these publications were subsequently searched for any missed but relevant manuscripts. Identified papers were reviewed and summarized by both authors. Results The limited research conducted suggests that exercise may be an effective adjunctive treatment for SUDs. In contrast to the scarce intervention trials to date, a relative abundance of literature on the theoretical and practical reasons supporting the investigation of this topic has been published. Conclusions Definitive conclusions are difficult to draw due to diverse study protocols and low adherence to exercise programs, among other problems. Despite the currently limited and inconsistent evidence, numerous theoretical and practical reasons support exercise-based treatments for SUDs, including psychological, behavioral, neurobiological, nearly universal safety profile, and overall positive health effects.