Abstract in English:Abstract INTRODUCTION Burnout syndrome has a negative impact on university students’ health worldwide. Global prevalence of each dimension of the syndrome is estimated at 55.4% for emotional exhaustion, 31.6% for cynicism and 30.9% for academic inefficacy. OBJECTIVE Evaluate the efficacy of physical exercise in reducing burnout levels in university students. METHODS We carried out an investigation in students from the Technical University of Ambato, Ecuador. Students were in different career tracks, randomly selected, and were assigned to three different groups with pre-test and post-test measurements: two intervention groups (aerobic and strength exercise) and one control group (no exercise). The evaluation instrument was the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Student Survey, whose dimensions are exhaustion, cynicism and academic inefficacy. We also evaluated heart rate variability. RESULTS The aerobic exercise group reduced cynicism by 21.1% (d = 0.252), inefficacy 13.1% (d = 0.397) and exhaustion by 31.0% (d = 0.532). The strength exercise group reduced cynicism by 27.4% (d = 0.315), inefficacy by 21.7% (d = 0.704) and exhaustion by 19.6% (d = 0.299). In the control group, exhaustion and inefficacy increased by 10.1% (d = 0.128) and 4.4% (d = 0.129) respectively; instead, cynicism was reduced by 7.3% (d = 0.062).The aerobic exercise group had the greatest increase in heart rate variability (at 16.8%), followed by the strength group (16.6%) and the control group (5.2%). CONCLUSIONS Physical exercise (both aerobic and strength) was effective in reducing burnout levels in university students.
Abstract in English:Abstract INTRODUCTION In Cuba, 29,939 deaths from ischemic heart disease were recorded in 2020. Myocardial revascularization surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention are well-established methods of treating patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. These methods can reduce overall deaths, but choosing the optimal strategy for treating left main coronary ischemia is a source of debate among specialists. OBJECTIVE Estimate survival and major cardiac and cerebrovascular events in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention versus myocardial revascularization surgery and their relationships with pre-existing patients’ clinical and angiographic characteristics. METHODS We conducted a retrospective cohort study in 41 patients; 35 men and 6 women aged 40–85 years who had been diagnosed with multivessel coronary artery disease and treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (n = 17) or myocardial revascularization surgery (n = 24) at the Medical–Surgical Research Center in Havana, Cuba, in 2016. The main variable under consideration was the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events over a four-year period following these interventions. We collected clinical and angiographic characteristics, and used the Kaplan–Meier test to calculate survival curves. Survival probabilities were compared using the log-rank test. A value of p <0.05 was considered statistically significant. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio, with 95% confidence intervals used for both procedures. RESULTS There were a total of 20 major adverse cardiovascular events, 75% (15/20) of which occurred in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and 5% in patients who had myocardial revascularization surgery. The probability of survival was 70.6% in surgery and 37.5% in interventionism; p = 0.043; hazard ratio 1.58 (95% confidence interval 0.987–2.530), p = 0.047. The need to repeat a revascularization procedure was the only major cardiovascular event that showed significant differences between methods (log-rank p = 0.015), and was more frequent in percutaneous intervention. CONCLUSIONS Myocardial revascularization surgery offers a better chance of survival than percutaneous coronary intervention. Major adverse cardiovascular events are more frequent in patients with coronary interventionism, due to the need to repeat revascularization.