| Literature DB >> 24693326 |
Joanne W Y Chung1, Vincent C M Yan1, Hongwei Zhang2.
Abstract
AIM: To summarize all relevant trials and critically evaluate the effect of acupuncture on heart rate variability (HRV).Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24693326 PMCID: PMC3944737 DOI: 10.1155/2014/819871
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Diagram of the power spectral density heart rate variability (HRV) (adapted from [4]).
Summary of the normal values of HRV.
| Component | Outcome parameter | Clinical indication |
|---|---|---|
| Very low frequency (VLF) | Frequency (0.0033–0.04 Hz) | Indicator of overall activity of various slow sympathetic activities |
| Low frequency (LF) | Frequency (0.04–0.15 Hz) | Indicator of sympathetic activities with parasympathetic influence when the respiration rate is lower than 7 per minute |
| High frequency (HF) | Frequency (0.15–0.4 Hz) | Indicator of parasympathetic activities |
| LF/HF ratio | 1.5–2.0 | Indicator of sympathetic activities; a higher number means increased sympathetic activities or reduced parasympathetic activities |
| sNormalized LF and HF (LF norm, HF norm) | Frequency (Hz) | The monotonic nonlinear transformation of LF/HF ratio. The LF/HF ratio, LF norm, and HF norm indicate the same aspects of sympathovagal balance of autonomic nervous system |
Inclusion criteria of the RCTs.
| Component | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Participant | Adults (aged ≥18) were treated with needle acupuncture with or without electric stimulation |
| Intervention | Trials employed acupuncture as the sole treatment |
| Comparator | Trials compared needle acupuncture with any type of sham acupuncture or no treatment (control) |
| Outcome measures | Trials used spectral analysis of HRV as the outcome measure |
Summary of extracted RCTs.
|
Authors (year) | Design sample size Conditions | Intervention (regimen) | Heart rate variability | Main results of intergroup differences | Risk of bias |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Kwak et al. [ | Parallel; 42 healthy students with examination stress | (A) AT ( | (1) HRT (beats/min); | (1) A→, B→, C↓ when comparing between examination and normal time: | U, U, U, U, U |
|
| |||||
|
Huang et al. [ | Parallel; 111 healthy subjects | (A) AT (P6, 20 min on both forearms, | (1) Mean RR interval (ms); | (1) A↑, B↑, C→: | U, N, N, N, N |
|
| |||||
|
Chang et al. [ | Crossover, 15 healthy subjects | (A) EA (2 Hz, 30 min, |
(1) LF/HF; | (1) A↑, B→: NS; | U, N, Y, U, U |
|
| |||||
|
Chang et al. [ | Crossover, 15 healthy subjects | (A) EA (2 Hz at Zusanli, 30 min, | (1) LF/HF; | (1) A↑ during and after EA, B→, C→, D→, E→: NS; | U, N, Y, U, U |
|
| |||||
|
Hsu et al. [ | Crossover, 10 healthy subjects | (A) EA (2 Hz at BL15, 10 min, | (1) LF norm; | (1)–(4) A↓, B→: | U, N, U, U, U |
|
| |||||
|
Hsu et al. [ | Crossover, 10 healthy subjects | (A) AT (scalp-Sishencong, 10 min, | (1) LF norm; | (1)–(4) A↓, B↑, C→: | U, N, U, U, U |
|
| |||||
|
Kim et al. [ | Crossover, 38 female subjects with regular menstrual cycle | (A) AT (LI4 and SP6, 15 min, | (1) LF; | (1) A↑, B↑: NS; | U, N, Y, U, U |
|
| |||||
| Streitberger et al. [ | Crossover, 20 healthy subjects | (A) AT (LI4, 5 min and 15 sec manual stimulation, | (1) LF; | (1) and (2) A→, B→: NS; | Y, N, Y, Y, U |
|
| |||||
|
Li et al. [ | Parallel, 29 male healthy subjects (after 3 hr driving workout) | (A) AT (15 min, | (1) LF/HF; | (1)-(2) A↓, B→: | U, N, Y, U, U |
|
| |||||
|
Chang et al. [ | Parallel, 12 male healthy subjects with no neurological diseases | (A) AT (PC6, 3 sessions with one-week washout, 30 min, | (1) VLF; | NS for all cases | U, N, U, U, U |
|
| |||||
|
Kurono et al. [ | Crossover, 14 male healthy subjects | (A) AT (epifascial stimulation at CV17 and CV16, needle inserted for 1s only, | (1) LF; | (1)-(2) A↑ in CV17, but not CV16; | U, N, Y, U, U |
|
| |||||
|
Liu et al. [ | 1st phase (acute); Crossover, 27 patients with functional dyspepsia (Rome II) | (A) TEA (25 Hz, PC6 and ST36, 30 min, 2 sessions, | (1) HF; | (1) A↑ during 1st 30 min Tx, B→, C→: | Y, N, U, U, U |
|
| |||||
|
Liu et al. [ | 2nd phase (chronic); Crossover, 27 patients with functional dyspepsia (Rome II) | (A) TEA for 2 weeks (twice daily, 30 min), 1 week-wash-out, sham TEA for 2 weeks; | (1) HF; | (1) A↑ after 2 weeks, B→, C→: | Y, N, Y, Y, U |
|
| |||||
|
Shi et al. [ | Crossover, 20 patients with coronary heart disease | (A) AT (30 min, | (1) LF; | (1) A↓, B↓, C→: | U, N, U, U, U |
AT: acupuncture treatment; EA: electroacupuncture; TEA: transcutaneous electroacupuncture; Co: control; Tx: treatment.
Risk of bias (1) sequence generation; (2) incomplete data; (3) patient-blinded; (4) assessor blinded; (5) allocation concealment performed.
Figure 2Process of studies selection.
Figure 3Results of risk of bias analysis.
Figure 4Forest plot of the effects of acupuncture on HF for healthy subjects.
Figure 5Forest plot of the effects of acupuncture on LF for healthy subjects.
Figure 6Forest plot of the effects of acupuncture on LF/HF ratio for healthy subjects.
Figure 7Forest plot of the effects of acupuncture on HF norm for healthy subjects.
Figure 8Forest plot of the effects of acupuncture on LF norm for healthy subjects.
Figure 9Forest plot of the effects of acupuncture at ST36 on HF for healthy subjects.
Figure 10Forest plot of the effects of acupuncture on HF for nonhealthy subjects.
Figure 11Forest plot of the effects of acupuncture on LF for nonhealthy subjects.
Figure 12Forest plot of the effects of acupuncture on LF/HF ratio for nonhealthy subjects.
Figure 13Forest plot of the effects of acupuncture at PC6 on HF for nonhealthy subjects.
Figure 14Forest plot of the effects of acupuncture at PC6 on LF/HF for nonhealthy subjects.
Figure 15Forest plot of the effects of acupuncture at LI4 on HF for all healthy and nonhealthy subjects.
Figure 16Forest plot of the effects of acupuncture at LI4 on LF/HF ratio for all healthy and nonhealthy subjects.
Figure 17Forest plot of the effects of acupuncture at LI4 on HF norm for all healthy and nonhealthy subjects.
Figure 18Forest plot of the effects of acupuncture at LI4 on LF norm for all healthy and nonhealthy subjects.
Figure 19Forest plot of the effects of acupuncture at PC6 on HF for all healthy and nonhealthy subjects.
Figure 20Forest plot of the effects of acupuncture at PC6 on LF for all healthy and nonhealthy subjects.
Figure 21Forest plot of the effects of acupuncture at PC6 on LF/HF ratio for all healthy and nonhealthy subjects.
Figure 22Forest plot of the effects of acupuncture at PC6 on HF norm for all healthy and nonhealthy subjects.
Figure 23Forest plot of the effects of acupuncture at PC6 on LF norm for all healthy and nonhealthy subjects.
Figure 24Forest plot of the effects of acupuncture at ST36 on HF for all healthy and nonhealthy subjects.
Figure 25Forest plot of the effects of acupuncture at ST36 on LF for all healthy and nonhealthy subjects.
Figure 26Forest plot of the effects of acupuncture at ST36 on LF/HF ratio for all healthy and non-healthy subjects.
A summary of the heterogeneity for random effect.
| Outcomes | No. of studies | Heterogeneity Chi-sq test | Higgins | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All studies | Healthy | Non-healthy | All Studies | Healthy | Non-healthy | All studies | Healthy | Non-healthy | |
| HF | 9 | 7 | 2 | 41.31 ( | 16.99 ( | 24.31 ( | 64% | 35%# | 88% |
| LF | 7 | 6 | 1 | 51.93 ( | 47.44 ( | 0.15 ( | 77% | 79% | 0% |
| LF/HF ratio | 11 | 9 | 2 | 977.50 ( | 913.49 ( | 0.75 ( | 98% | 99% | 0% |
| HF norm | 5 | 5 | — | 32.35 ( | 32.35 ( | — | 78% | 78% | NA |
| LF norm | 5 | 5 | — | 15.39 ( | 15.39 ( | — | 55% | 55% | NA |
| LI4 on HF | 2 | — | — | 0.00 ( | — | — | 0% | — | — |
| LI4 on LF/HF ratio | 4 | — | — | 73.89 ( | — | — | 93% | — | — |
| LI4 on HF norm | 2 | — | — | 26.62 ( | — | — | 89% | — | — |
| LI4 on LF norm | 2 | — | — | 13.43 ( | — | — | 78% | — | — |
| PC6 on HF | 3 | — | 2 | 24.71 ( | — | 24.31 ( | 80% | — | 0% |
| PC6 on LF | 2 | — | — | 6.33 ( | — | — | 53% | — | — |
| PC6 on LF/HF ratio | 6 | — | 2 | 85.78 ( | — | 0.75 ( | 88% | — | 0% |
| PC6 on HF norm | 3 | — | — | 28.68 ( | — | — | 86% | — | — |
| PC6 on LF norm | 3 | — | — | 15.22 ( | — | — | 74% | — | — |
| ST36 on HF | 3 | 2 | — | 33.34 ( | 0.49 ( | — | 88% | 0% | — |
| ST36 on LF | 2 | — | — | 7.39 ( | — | — | 88% | — | — |
| ST36 on LF/HF ratio | 3 | — | — | 108.59 ( | — | — | 95% | — | — |
#Higgins I 2 Test is ≤50%; fixed effect is used.
A summary of the effect of acupuncture in HRV outcome measures in various subject groups and by different acupoints.
| Outcomes | Overall effect, | Mean difference | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All studies | Healthy | Non-healthy | All Studies | Healthy | Non-healthy | |
| HF | 4.69 ( | 1.39 ( | 5.25 ( | 0.08 [0.05, 0.10]* | 0.07 [−0.03, 0.17]# | 0.08 [0.05, 0.10]* |
| LF | 0.03 ( | 0.72 ( | 2.04 ( | 0.01 [−0.38, 0.40] | 0.15 [−0.26, 0.56] | −0.98 [−1.93, −0.04]* |
| LF/HF ratio | 2.18 ( | 1.26 ( | 15.82 ( | −0.33 [−0.63, −0.03]* | −0.26 [−0.66, 0.14] | −0.50 [−0.56, −0.44]* |
| HF norm | 5.00 ( | 5.00 ( | — | 0.51 [0.31, 0.70]* | 0.51 [0.31, 0.70]* | NA |
| LF norm | 4.03 ( | 4.03 ( | — | −0.30 [−0.44, −0.15]* | −0.30 [−0.44, −0.15]* | NA |
| LI4 on HF | 15.82 ( | — | — | 0.21 [−0.05, 0.47] | — | — |
| LI4 on LF/HF ratio | 0.04 ( | — | — | −0.01 [−0.29, 0.27] | — | — |
| LI4 on HF norm | 0.24 ( | — | — | 1.20 [−8.64, 11.04] | — | — |
| LI4 on LF norm | 0.36 ( | — | — | −1.45 [9.32, 6.41] | — | — |
| PC6 on HF | 5.47 ( | — | 5.25 ( | 0.07 [0.05, 0.10]* | — | 0.08 [0.05, 0.10]* |
| PC6 on LF | 0.57 (0.57) | — | — | −0.05 [−0.24, 0.13] | — | — |
| PC6 on LF/HF ratio | 2.23 ( | — | 15.82 ( | −0.27 [−0.51, −0.03]* | — | −0.50 [−0.56, −0.44]* |
| PC6 on HF norm | 0.20 ( | — | — | 0.80 [−6.99, 8.58] | — | — |
| PC6 on LF norm | 0.15 ( | — | — | −0.45 [−6.42, 5.52] | — | — |
| ST36 on HF | 4.47 ( | 3.00 ( | — | 0.07 [0.04, 0.11]* | −99.51 [−164.56, −34.45]* | — |
| ST36 on LF | 0.96 ( | — | — | −136.15 [−414.89, 142.59] | — | — |
| ST36 on LF/HF ratio | 0.61 ( | — | — | −0.09 [−0.36, 0.19] | — | — |
*Denoted “significant overall effect” and “significant mean difference”, respectively.
#Higgins I 2 test is ≤50%; fixed effect is used.