| Literature DB >> 35101070 |
Yao Wang1, Gonglian Xiao1, Qing Zeng2, Mingjun He1, Fei Li1, Jiaxin Lin1, Xun Luo3, Yulong Wang4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study discusses the effects of focus training on heart rate variability (HRV) in post-stroke fatigue (PoSF) patients.Entities:
Keywords: Heart rate variability; Post-stroke fatigue (PoSF); Self-generate physiological coherence system (SPCS)
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35101070 PMCID: PMC8805287 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-022-03239-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 5.531
Fig. 1Flow chart of study process
Comparison of FSS and HAMD scores in the two groups ( ± s, score)
| Group | FSS Score | HAMD Score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before intervention | After intervention | Before intervention | After intervention | |
| Research group (n = 30) | 43.02 ± 9.51 | 23.12 ± 7.45a | 20.14 ± 3.21 | 10.21 ± 3.24a |
| Control group (n = 30) | 42.96 ± 9.02 | 30.17 ± 6.59a | 20.09 ± 3.17 | 15.14 ± 5.11a |
| 0.025 | 3.882 | 0.061 | 4.463 | |
| 0.980 | < 0.001 | 0.952 | < 0.001 | |
To compared with the same group before the intervention
FSS, the fatigue severity scale; HAMD, the hamilton depression scale
aP < 0.05
Comparison of HRV time domain indexes in the two groups ( ± s)
| Group | Research group (n = 30) | Control group (n = 30) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SDNN (ms) | ||||
| Before intervention | 43.12 ± 7.01 | 42.59 ± 6.89 | 0.295 | 0.769 |
| After intervention | 109.45 ± 7.45a | 80.12 ± 5.69a | 17.137 | < 0.001 |
| SDANN (ms) | ||||
| Before intervention | 36.98 ± 5.12 | 37.01 ± 6.02 | 0.021 | 0.984 |
| After intervention | 95.52 ± 9.56a | 65.11 ± 8.65a | 12.919 | < 0.001 |
| RMSSD (ms) | ||||
| Before intervention | 14.29 ± 4.67 | 14.32 ± 4.72 | 0.025 | 0.98 |
| After intervention | 3.32 ± 1.74a | 7.02 ± 2.11a | 7.411 | < 0.001 |
| pNN50 | ||||
| Before intervention | 6.41 ± 1.79 | 6.33 ± 1.82 | 0.172 | 0.864 |
| After intervention | 1.29 ± 0.79a | 3.46 ± 1.02a | 9.213 | < 0.001 |
To compared with the same group before the intervention
SDNN, the standard deviation of 24-h normal R-R interval; SDANN, the mean standard deviation of R-R interval every five minutes in 24 h; RMSSD, the mean the square root of difference between adjacent R-R intervals at 24 h; pNN50, the 24-h adjacent R-R interval difference of > 50 ms percentage
aP < 0.05
Comparison of HRV frequency domain indexes in the two groups ( ± s)
| Group | Research group (n = 30) | Control group (n = 30) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LF (ms2/Hz) | ||||
| Before intervention | 467.85 ± 101.69 | 468.95 ± 103.24 | 0.042 | 0.967 |
| After intervention | 988.46 ± 245.46a | 600.69 ± 132.48a | 7.615 | < 0.001 |
| HF (ms2/Hz) | ||||
| Before intervention | 440.46 ± 214.55 | 451.12 ± 222.01 | 0.189 | 0.851 |
| After intervention | 677.79 ± 201.24a | 506.45 ± 220.14a | 3.147 | 0.003 |
| LF/HF | ||||
| Before intervention | 1.10 ± 0.80 | 1.09 ± 0.78 | 0.049 | 0.961 |
| After intervention | 1.94 ± 0.71a | 1.17 ± 0.82a | 3.686 | 0.001 |
To compared with before the intervention
LF: 0.04–0.15 Hz low frequency; HF: 0.15–0.4 Hz high frequency
aP < 0.05
Comparison of intervention satisfaction between the two groups n (%)
| Items | Research group (n = 30) | Control group (n = 30) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Great satisfaction | 20 (66.67) | 10 (33.33) | – | – |
| Satisfaction | 9 (30.00) | 12 (40.00) | – | – |
| Dissatisfaction | 1 (3.33) | 8 (26.67) | – | – |
| Total satisfaction | 29 (96.67) | 22 (73.33) | 4.706 | 0.03 |