Author: Kamila S de Freitas Gonçalves1, Ana C Queiroz Godoy Daniel1, José L Tatagiba Lamas2, Henrique C Oliveira2, Lyne Cloutier3, Renata C De Campos Pereira Silveira1, Eugenia V Veiga1
1 WHO Collaborating Centre for Nursing Research Development, College of Nursing University of São Paulo Ribeirão Preto Brazil.
2 School of Nursing University of Campinas Campinas Brazil.
3 Department of Nursing Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières Québec Canada.
Conference/Journal: Health Sci Rep
Date published: 2022 May 16
Other: Volume ID: 5 , Issue ID: 3 , Pages: e636 , Special Notes: doi: 10.1002/hsr2.636. , Word Count: 317
Backgroud and aims:
Hypertension (HTN) is a multifactorial chronic disease. Considering the high prevalence rates of this disease, treatment of HTN is necessary, not only to reduce blood pressure (BP) levels but also to prevent the development of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and kidney diseases. This treatment can be through medication, which will be determined according to the BP values, obtained either in medical consultations or at home; presence of cardiovascular risk factors, and the presence of target organ damage identified during anamnesis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to summarize the effects of device-guided slow breathing (DGSB) and nondevice-guided slow breathing (NDGSB) on BP levels of patients with HTN.
This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, pertaining to hypertensive patients, with or without comorbidity, over 18 years old, of both sexes, and with or without hypertensive medication. The selected studies showed comparisons between groups that performed DGSB and/or NDGSB with control conditions. The primary outcome was the value of systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) after the interventions.
Twenty-two studies involving 17,214 participants were included in the quantitative analysis. Considerable heterogeneity was revealed between studies. Using random effect model, it was found that DGSB did not significantly reduce SBP and DBP compared to usual care, both in terms BP values and in relation to their variations (SBP, mean difference [MD]: -2.13 mmHg, (95% confidence interval [CI]: -12.71 to 8.44), 288 individuals; I 2 = 93%, high heterogenity: DBP, MD: -0.90, 95% CI: -3.97 to 2.11, 288 individuals; I 2 = 63%, substantial heterogenity. SBP variations MD: -2.42, 95% CI: -7.24 to 2.40, 443 individuals; I 2 = 85% high heterogenity/DBP variations MD: -1.67, 95% CI: -4.57 to 1.24, 443 individuals; I 2 = 80%, high heterogenity).
Based on these results it appears that DGSB did not reduce BP in hypertensive patients and NDGSB is a new path for the future.
Keywords: breathing exercisese; device‐guided breathing; hypertension; physical therapy modalities; resperate; systematic review.
PMID: 35601033 PMCID: PMC9110782 DOI: 10.1002/hsr2.636