Kottayam

Researchers are investigating and comparing the effects of Christian and Islamic heart-centred spiritual meditation with mindfulness meditation and a waitlist control in healthy adults aged 18 to 60. The study focuses on multiple aspects of well-being including psychophysiology, cognition, mental health, and social functioning. It aims to understand how these different meditation practices impact interpersonal functioning, such as prosocial behavior, forgiveness, empathy, and perspective taking, along with other mental and physical health measures. Participants are randomly assigned to one of three groups based on their religious affiliation: Christian spiritual meditation, Islamic spiritual meditation, or mindfulness meditation. Each intervention lasts 8 weeks and involves daily approximately 20-minute audio-guided sessions delivered through a mobile app. The spiritual meditation groups practice heart visualization and prayer recitation focused on connection to God, while the mindfulness group follows a mindfulness-based stress reduction program emphasizing focused attention and non-judgmental acceptance. The waitlist control group does not receive intervention during the study but will access the spiritual meditation program after completion. Assessments are conducted at three time points: before the intervention, immediately after the 8-week intervention, and at a 3-month follow-up. Researchers evaluate interpersonal functioning using self-reported measures of prosociality, forgiveness, empathy, and perspective taking. Secondary outcomes include physiology (pain tolerance, stress reactivity), attention (alerting, orienting, executive function), and mental health (stress, depression, anxiety, well-being). Data collection involves questionnaires, psychophysiological monitoring, and app-based adherence tracking to understand the effects and external correlates of meditation practices on overall well-being.

Researchers are evaluating two strategies for complete revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI), including both ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation MI (NSTEMI), who also have multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). The trial compares physiology-guided revascularization, which uses specific measurements to decide treatment, with angiography-guided revascularization, which relies on imaging. The study aims to determine if the physiology-guided approach is not worse than the angiography-guided method in preventing cardiovascular death, new MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization, and whether it is better at reducing safety issues like bleeding, stroke, or kidney injury. Participants undergo procedures to treat non-culprit lesions (NCLs) using either physiology guidance or angiography guidance. In the physiology-guided group, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is performed on lesions with resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) of 0.89 or less or fractional flow reserve (FFR) of 0.80 or less, according to local practice. The angiography-guided group receives PCI based on imaging assessments following local practice. The study includes an observational imaging sub-study using optical coherence tomography (OCT) for a subset of patients. Participants are involved for a minimum of two years, during which researchers monitor the time to first cardiovascular events such as death, new MI, or additional revascularization, along with safety events like bleeding or stroke. The study includes regular evaluations and follow-up to assess these outcomes, ensuring comprehensive safety and efficacy data collection in this patient population.