Heart rate variability biofeedback in patients with alcohol dependence: a randomized controlled study

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Heart rate variability biofeedback in patients with alcohol dependence: a randomized controlled study

Citable link to this page

 

 
Title: Heart rate variability biofeedback in patients with alcohol dependence: a randomized controlled study
Author: Penzlin, Ana Isabel; Siepmann, Timo; Illigens, Ben Min-Woo; Weidner, Kerstin; Siepmann, Martin

Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.

Citation: Penzlin, Ana Isabel, Timo Siepmann, Ben Min-Woo Illigens, Kerstin Weidner, and Martin Siepmann. 2015. “Heart rate variability biofeedback in patients with alcohol dependence: a randomized controlled study.” Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 11 (1): 2619-2627. doi:10.2147/NDT.S84798. http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S84798.
Full Text & Related Files:
Abstract: Background and objective In patients with alcohol dependence, ethyl-toxic damage of vasomotor and cardiac autonomic nerve fibers leads to autonomic imbalance with neurovascular and cardiac dysfunction, the latter resulting in reduced heart rate variability (HRV). Autonomic imbalance is linked to increased craving and cardiovascular mortality. In this study, we sought to assess the effects of HRV biofeedback training on HRV, vasomotor function, craving, and anxiety. Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled study in 48 patients (14 females, ages 25–59 years) undergoing inpatient rehabilitation treatment. In the treatment group, patients (n=24) attended six sessions of HRV biofeedback over 2 weeks in addition to standard rehabilitative care, whereas, in the control group, subjects received standard care only. Psychometric testing for craving (Obsessive Compulsive Drinking Scale), anxiety (Symptom Checklist-90-Revised), HRV assessment using coefficient of variation of R-R intervals (CVNN) analysis, and vasomotor function assessment using laser Doppler flowmetry were performed at baseline, immediately after completion of treatment or control period, and 3 and 6 weeks afterward (follow-ups 1 and 2). Results: Psychometric testing showed decreased craving in the biofeedback group immediately postintervention (OCDS scores: 8.6±7.9 post-biofeedback versus 13.7±11.0 baseline [mean ± standard deviation], P<0.05), whereas craving was unchanged at this time point in the control group. Anxiety was reduced at follow-ups 1 and 2 post-biofeedback, but was unchanged in the control group (P<0.05). Following biofeedback, CVNN tended to be increased (10.3%±2.8% post-biofeedback, 10.1%±3.5% follow-up 1, 10.1%±2.9% follow-up 2 versus 9.7%±3.6% baseline; P=not significant). There was no such trend in the control group. Vasomotor function assessed using the mean duration to 50% vasoconstriction of cutaneous vessels after deep inspiration was improved following biofeedback immediately postintervention and was unchanged in the control group (P<0.05). Conclusion: Our data indicate that HRV biofeedback might be useful to decrease anxiety, increase HRV, and improve vasomotor function in patients with alcohol dependence when complementing standard rehabilitative inpatient care.
Published Version: doi:10.2147/NDT.S84798
Other Sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4624058/pdf/
Terms of Use: This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA
Citable link to this page: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:23845211
Downloads of this work:

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters