Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39425266›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of neurology2024

Heart rate variability biofeedback for critical illness polyneuropathy: a randomized sham-controlled study.

Annahita Sedghi, Christoph Bartels, Erik Simon, Florian Krause, Martin Arndt, Stefan Zsigri, Kristian Barlinn, Ulf Bodechtel, Ana Isabel Penzlin, Timo Siepmann

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Annahita SedghiDresden Neurovascular Center, Department of Neurology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Christoph BartelsDresden Neurovascular Center, Department of Neurology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Erik SimonDresden Neurovascular Center, Department of Neurology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Florian KrauseDepartment of Internal Medicine 1, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Martin ArndtDresden Neurovascular Center, Department of Neurology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Stefan ZsigriDresden Neurovascular Center, Department of Neurology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Kristian BarlinnDresden Neurovascular Center, Department of Neurology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Ulf BodechtelDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine and Weaning, Klinik Bavaria Kreischa, Kreischa, Germany.
Ana Isabel PenzlinDepartment of Neurology, Rhön Klinikum Campus Bad Neustadt, Bad Neustadt, Germany.
Timo SiepmannDresden Neurovascular Center, Department of Neurology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2196-5904

Funding

Kurt Goldstein Institut
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeCritical illness polyneuropathy (CIP) has been linked to neurocardiac dysfunction mediated by autonomic nervous system dysregulation, which increases mortality. We aimed to assess if heart rate variability (HRV) biofeedback could improve neurocardiac function in CIP.

methodsWe randomly allocated (1:1) patients with electrophysiologically confirmed CIP undergoing early inpatient neurological rehabilitation to additional HRV or sham biofeedback over 14 days. We evaluated neurocardiac function via standard deviation of normal-to-normal intervals (SDNN) as the primary outcome, as well as HRV frequency domains, sympathetic cutaneous sudomotor and vasomotor functions and disability at baseline, post intervention and 4 weeks later. The study is registered on the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00028911).

resultsWe included 30 patients with CIP (40% females, median [interquartile range] age 64.6 [56, 72] years). We observed an increase in SDNN and the predominantly parasympathetic high frequency domain post intervention (ß = 16.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2, 32.6 [p = 0.047] and ß = 1179.2, 95% CI 119.9, 2158.5 [p = 0.018]), which was sustained at the 4-week follow-up (ß = 25.7, 95% CI 6.0, 45.4 [p = 0.011] and ß = 25.7, 95% CI 6.0, 45.4 [p = 0.011]). Patients who underwent HRV biofeedback displayed a higher adjusted Barthel index, indicating less severe disability 4 weeks after the intervention compared to those in the sham group (ß = 23.3, 95% CI 5.5, 41.1 [p = 0.014]). Low frequency and sympathetic skin functions did not differ between groups (p = nonsignificant).

conclusionsOur study provides pilot data suggesting that, in patients with CIP, HRV biofeedback can improve neurocardiac function with a predominant effect on the parasympathetic nervous system and has a beneficial effect on functional recovery.

Indexed as

Biofeedback, PsychologyHeart RatePolyneuropathiesAgedCritical IllnessFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeurological Rehabilitationbiofeedbackheart rate variabilityneuropathyparasympatheticsepsis

Identifiers

PMID39425266
PMCPMC11554868

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.