4.3 Article

Slow recovery from voluntary hyperventilation in panic disorder

期刊

PSYCHOSOMATIC MEDICINE
卷 63, 期 4, 页码 638-649

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00006842-200107000-00017

关键词

panic disorder; social phobia; hypocapnia; respiration; respiratory sinus arrhythmia; autonomic nervous system

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Because hyperventilation has figured prominently in theories of panic disorder (PD) but not of social phobia (SP), we compared predictions regarding diagnosis-specific differences in psychological and physiological measures before, during, and after voluntary hyperventilation. Method: Physiological responses were recorded in 14 patients with PD, 24 patients with SP, and 24 controls during six cycles of 1-minute of fast breathing alternating with 1 minute of recovery, followed by 3 minutes of fast breathing and 10 minutes of recovery. Speed of fast breathing was paced by a tone modulated at 18 cycles/minute, and depth by feedback aimed at achieving an end-tidal pCO(2) of 20 mm Hg. These values were reached equally by all groups. Results: During fast breathing, PD and SP patients reported more anxiety than controls, and their feelings of dyspnea and suffocation increased more from baseline. Skin conductance declined more slowly in PD over the six 1-minute fast breathing periods. At the end of the final 10-minute recovery, PD patients reported more awareness of breathing, dyspnea, and fear of being short of breath, and their pCO(2)s, heart rates, and skin conductance levels had returned less toward normal levels than in other groups. Their lower PCO2S were associated with a higher frequency of sigh breaths. Conclusions: PD and SP patients report more distress than controls to equal amounts of hypocapnia, but PD differ from SP patients and controls in having slower symptomatic and physiological recovery. This finding was not specifically predicted by hyperventilation, cognitive-behavioral, or suffocation alarm theories of PD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据