Editorial Type:
Article Category: Other
 | 
Online Publication Date: Apr 01, 2014

From Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) to Heart Rate Variability (HRV) Biofeedback: The Bridge Between High-Tech Medicine and High-Tech Psychology—How Can We Proceed in Clinical Practice?

MD and
PhD, BCB, BCN
Page Range: 24 – 27
Save
Download PDF

Acute coronary syndromes (ACS), including unstable angina (UA) and myocardial infarction (MI), are clinical symptoms of heart disease, called ischemic heart disease (IHD), and are important causes of death worldwide and in Poland. Medical associations including the European Cardiac Society (ECS) and the American Heart Association (AHA) recognize psychological factors, including depression, anxiety, and stress, as important factors that influence progression of IHD among patients after ACS. Data are accumulating, showing that psychophysiological interventions and relaxation exercises improve clinical outcome in cardiac patients. In the medical literature, however, a number of clinical randomized, controlled studies document the effectiveness of practical medical recommendations (evidence-based medicine, EBM), but very little available data and almost no evidence-based guidelines support physician use of practical implementation of psychophysiological practice or relaxation. The present article describes a study in a Polish hospital cardiology unit, utilizing a psychophysiological stress profile (PSP) to assess patients after myocardial infarction, to assess which patients can utilize paced diaphragmatic breathing as home practice without extended biofeedback training, and which require more extensive biofeedback training. The article discusses safety issues in the use of a PSP in cardiac populations, and possible practical consequences of using a psychophysiological stress profile in clinical cardiac practice.

  • Download PDF
Figure 1.
Figure 1.

HRV in each stage of the PSP. The groups are divided in relation to HRV values at stage 5 of the PSP (HRV5)—slow spontaneous breathing. Number of patients in subsequent groups is as follows: (1) HRV < 2.0: 14 patients; (2) HRV: 2.1–4.0: 33 patients; (3) HRV: 4.1–6.0: 32 patients; (4) HRV 6.1–8.0: 10 patients; (5) HRV 8.1–10.0: 6 patients; (6) HRV > 10.0: 5 patients.


Rafal Sztembis


Donald Moss


Contributor Notes

Correspondence: Rafal Sztembis, MD, Provincial Hospital #2, Rzeszów, Poland, email: rsztembis@gmail.com.