Device-guided breathing exercises in the control of human blood pressure

Abstract

There is evidence that short-term use of DGB may reduce both DBP and DBP. However, five of the eight trials were sponsored by or involved the manufactures of the device. When these trials were excluded we found no overall effect. We conclude that longer term, independent trials are required to validate this intervention.

Effects of slow and regular breathing exercise on cardiopulmonary coupling and blood pressure

“…In 2002, Resperate was approved by FDA (USA) as an over-the-counter device for non-pharmacological treatment of hypertension [22]. Many studies have been published in this area demonstrating the effectiveness of slow breathing on reducing BP [15,35].…”

“…Many studies have been published in this area demonstrating the effectiveness of slow breathing on reducing BP [15,35]. However, several recent studies suspected the effectiveness of this device to lower BP [1,20,22]. In our study, most of the subjects showed the phenomenon of BP reduction and PTT baseline increasing during the SPB procedure (87.7 % detected by PTT and 85.4 % detected by CNAP), which suggests that slow breathing exercise can generate the beneficial effect of reducing BP to cardiovascular system.…”

“…An FDA (the Food and Drug Administration, USA) approved device, Resperate (InterCure Ltd, Lod, Israel), has been developed for the treatment of hypertension by PB technology [35]. However, recent studies suspected the effectiveness of this device to lower BP [1,17,20,22]. Some fundamental questions on practicing slow breathing exercise have not been well answered, such as the setting of target breathing frequency and the importance of breathing regularity.…”

Response to Call for a Re-evaluation of the American Heart Association's Standpoint Concerning Device-Guided Slow Breathing Using the RESPeRATE Device

“…1 We regret that the meta-analysis reported in our overview 1 was completed before the publication of their recent trial, which found no significant differences in office blood pressure responses among 45 diabetes mellitus patients. 3 In our review as part of the American Heart Association scientific statement, 2 we were indeed careful to point out many of the same methodological issues as raised in their letter, their recent trial, 3 and in an independent meta-analysis. 4 We expressed similar concerns about the possibility of inadequate statistical power, the nature of the selected control interventions, and the small number of published studies performed independently of the device's manufacturer.…”

“…We had spirited discussions of whether the previously discussed limitations of study design, statistical power, methods of analysis, and other hallmarks of inferior-quality research should outweigh the significant results of the meta-analyses 2,4 that included all published trials. At the conclusion of our deliberations, we decided to provide both the overall results of the inclusive meta-analyses and the strong caveats about the data that constituted them.…”