| Literature DB >> 18534024 |
Charles E Henley1, Douglas Ivins, Miriam Mills, Frances K Wen, Bruce A Benjamin.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relationship between osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) and the autonomic nervous system has long been acknowledged, but is poorly understood. In an effort to define this relationship, cervical myofascial release was used as the OMT technique with heart rate variability (HRV) as a surrogate for autonomic activity. This study quantifies that relationship and demonstrates a cause and effect.Entities:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18534024 PMCID: PMC2442110 DOI: 10.1186/1750-4732-2-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Osteopath Med Prim Care ISSN: 1750-4732
Figure 1Experimental protocol. Shaded areas show the times when data were analyzed for each subject. *= No treatment
Mean and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) for Heart Rate, LFnu, HFnu, and LF/HF Parameters
| Control | Sham OMT | OMT | ||||||||
| 95% CI | 95% CI | 95% CI | ||||||||
| Position | Mean | Lower Bound | Upper Bound | Mean | Lower Bound | Upper Bound | Mean | Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |
| Heart Rate (bpm) | H1 | 67.61 | 61.79 | 73.44 | 65.64 | 60.42 | 70.86 | 62.43 | 57.89 | 66.96 |
| Tilt | 80.51 | 74.52 | 86.51 | 78.73 | 72.03 | 85.43 | 71.74 | 66.29 | 77.20 | |
| H2 | 65.43 | 59.85 | 71.01 | 64.03 | 58.74 | 69.32 | 59.53 | 55.44 | 63.62 | |
| LFnu | H1 | 53.21 | 44.05 | 62.36 | 44.97 | 35.63 | 54.31 | 40.08 | 28.80 | 51.35 |
| Tilt | 80.19 | 76.00 | 84.38 | 76.93 | 71.25 | 82.61 | 58.33 | 49.87 | 66.79 | |
| H2 | 53.30 | 43.90 | 62.70 | 47.98 | 39.32 | 56.64 | 41.49 | 30.48 | 52.50 | |
| HFnu | H1 | 47.89 | 38.41 | 57.38 | 54.43 | 44.53 | 64.33 | 59.37 | 47.37 | 71.37 |
| Tilt | 20.15 | 15.73 | 24.57 | 21.57 | 16.43 | 26.71 | 41.44 | 32.40 | 50.48 | |
| H2 | 47.50 | 37.61 | 57.39 | 51.38 | 42.22 | 60.53 | 56.60 | 45.64 | 67.54 | |
| LF/HF | H1 | 1.46 | 0.97 | 1.96 | 1.17 | 0.53 | 1.81 | 1.09 | 0.41 | 1.77 |
| Tilt | 4.85 | 3.62 | 6.08 | 4.44 | 2.92 | 5.96 | 1.83 | 1.11 | 2.56 | |
| H2 | 1.60 | 0.90 | 2.29 | 1.29 | 0.58 | 2.00 | 1.04 | 0.49 | 1.60 | |
H1 = first horizontal position, Tilt = 50-degree head-up position, H2 = second (recovery) horizontal position. LFnu = normalized low frequency, HFnu = normalized high frequency, LF/HF = low frequency to high frequency ratio. The protocol was completed three times, Control, Sham, and OMT.
Figure 2Effect of body position and treatment on heart rate. Values are mean ± SEM. * indicates a significant difference (p < 0.001) within a condition between H1 and Tilt positions; # indicates a significant difference (p < 0.001) between control and OMT and sham and OMT at Tilt position.
Figure 3Effect of body position and treatment on LFnu, HFnu and LF/HF ratio. Values are mean ± SEM. LF = Low Frequency, HF = High Frequency, nu = normalized. * indicates a significant difference (p < 0.001) within a condition between H1 and Tilt positions; # indicates a significant difference (p < 0.001) between control and OMT conditions and sham and OMT conditions in the Tilt position.
Figure 4Effect of body position and treatment on respiratory rate. Values are mean ± SEM. There were no significant differences within or between conditions.