Journal
PSYCHOSOMATIC MEDICINE
Volume 83, Issue 6, Pages 631-640Publisher
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PSY.0000000000000900
Keywords
mindfulness; meditation; heart rate variability; vagal tone; respiratory sinus arrhythmia; mechanisms; meta-analysis; HF-HRV = high-frequency heart rate variability; HRV = heart rate variability; MBI = mindfulness-based intervention; MBSR = mindfulness-based stress reduction; RCT = randomized controlled trial; RSA = respiratory sinus arrhythmia
Categories
Funding
- La Trobe University
- Healthscope Hospitals
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [R01HL113272, K23HL123607]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
The meta-analysis found insufficient evidence to support the effectiveness of mindfulness and meditation-based interventions in improving vagally mediated HRV. Results suggest that some MBIs may not significantly increase HRV compared to control conditions. Further high-quality research is needed to clarify the role MBIs may play in impacting HRV.
Objective Heart rate variability (HRV) is a marker of autonomic nervous system function associated with both physical and mental health. Many studies have suggested that mindfulness and meditation-based interventions (MBIs) are associated with improvements in HRV, but findings are mixed, and to date, no comprehensive meta-analysis has synthesized results. Methods Systematic literature searches were conducted using PsycINFO, Embase, Medline, CINAHL, ERIC, and Scopus to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of predominantly seated MBIs on resting-state vagally mediated HRV. Risk of bias was judged using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Results Nineteen RCTs met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Random-effects meta-analysis found that MBIs were not efficacious in increasing vagally mediated resting-state HRV relative to control conditions (Hedges g = 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.014 to 0.77). When removing an outlier (g = 3.22), the effect size was reduced, CI narrowed, and findings remained nonsignificant (g = 0.19, 95% CI = -0.02 to 0.39). High heterogeneity in results (I-2 = 89.12%) could not be explained by a priori-determined moderators including intervention duration, study setting, and control type. Conclusions There is currently insufficient evidence to indicate that MBIs lead to improvements in vagally mediated HRV over control conditions. Future large, well-designed RCTs with low risk of methodological bias could help add to the current evidence to elucidate any role MBIs might play in impacting HRV.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available