Progress in neuro-psychopharmacology & biological psychiatry · 2024
Transcranial direct current stimulation improves heart rate variability: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ko Do-Kyung, Lee Hajun, Kim Dong-Il, Park Young-Min, Kang Nyeonju
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Heart rate variability (HRV) is a useful tool for evaluating cardiovascular autonomic nervous system (ANS) functions. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the potential effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) protocols on HRV parameters.
METHODS: This study acquired 97 comparisons from 24 qualified studies for data synthesis. Using standardized mean difference (SMD), individual and overall effect sizes were estimated to show differences in HRV variables between active tDCS and sham stimulation conditions. More positive effect size values indicated that active tDCS caused greater increases in HRV than sham stimulation. Furthermore, moderator variable analyses were performed to determine whether changes in HRV variables differed depending on (a) task types (physical stress versus psychological stress versus resting condition), (b) targeted brain regions, (c) stimulation polarity, (d) characteristics of participants, and (e) specific HRV variables. Finally, we used meta-regression analyses to determine whether different tDCS parameters (i.e., the number of tDCS sessions, stimulation duration, and density) were associated with changes in HRV patterns.
RESULTS: The random-effects model meta-analysis showed that tDCS protocols significantly improved HRV variables (SMD = 0.400; P < 0.001). Moreover, for increasing HRV during the physical stress task (SMD = 1.352; P = 0.001), anodal stimulation on the M1 was effective, while combined polarity stimulation on the PFC improved HRV during the psychological stress task (SMD = 0.550; P < 0.001) and resting condition (SMD = 0.192; P = 0.012). Additional moderator variables and meta-regression analyses failed to show that tDCS protocols had positive effects in certain conditions, such as different stimulus polarity, characteristics of participants, specific HRV variables, and tDCS parameters.
CONCLUSION: These findings tentatively suggest that using tDCS protocols to stimulate optimal targeted brain areas may be effective in improving HRV patterns potentially related to cardiovascular ANS functions.
METHODS: This study acquired 97 comparisons from 24 qualified studies for data synthesis. Using standardized mean difference (SMD), individual and overall effect sizes were estimated to show differences in HRV variables between active tDCS and sham stimulation conditions. More positive effect size values indicated that active tDCS caused greater increases in HRV than sham stimulation. Furthermore, moderator variable analyses were performed to determine whether changes in HRV variables differed depending on (a) task types (physical stress versus psychological stress versus resting condition), (b) targeted brain regions, (c) stimulation polarity, (d) characteristics of participants, and (e) specific HRV variables. Finally, we used meta-regression analyses to determine whether different tDCS parameters (i.e., the number of tDCS sessions, stimulation duration, and density) were associated with changes in HRV patterns.
RESULTS: The random-effects model meta-analysis showed that tDCS protocols significantly improved HRV variables (SMD = 0.400; P < 0.001). Moreover, for increasing HRV during the physical stress task (SMD = 1.352; P = 0.001), anodal stimulation on the M1 was effective, while combined polarity stimulation on the PFC improved HRV during the psychological stress task (SMD = 0.550; P < 0.001) and resting condition (SMD = 0.192; P = 0.012). Additional moderator variables and meta-regression analyses failed to show that tDCS protocols had positive effects in certain conditions, such as different stimulus polarity, characteristics of participants, specific HRV variables, and tDCS parameters.
CONCLUSION: These findings tentatively suggest that using tDCS protocols to stimulate optimal targeted brain areas may be effective in improving HRV patterns potentially related to cardiovascular ANS functions.