↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

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

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
Heart rate variability biofeedback in patients with alcohol dependence: a randomized controlled study
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, October 2015
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s84798
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana Isabel Penzlin, Timo Siepmann, Ben Min-Woo Illigens, Kerstin Weidner, Martin Siepmann

Abstract

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. 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). 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). 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Poland 1 1%
Unknown 64 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 13%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 5 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 45%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 18%
Unspecified 3 4%
Engineering 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 9 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 January 2016.
All research outputs
#3,174,038
of 12,517,383 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#450
of 2,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,259
of 250,776 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#21
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,517,383 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,120 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 250,776 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.