Doctor of Physical Therapy Program, Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT, United States; Doctor of Physical Therapy Program, Azusa Pacific University, Azusa, CA, United States; PhD Program in Ergonomics and Biomechanics, OIOC Research & Education, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, United States; Elevating Practice in Orthopaedic Physical Therapy, MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, MA, United States.
Division of Biostatistics, Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2017 Apr;28:71-78. doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2017.01.013. Epub 2017 Feb 4.
Some normotensive patients can have a spike in resting systolic blood pressure (SBP) in response to acute neck pain. Applying the typical dosage of mobilization may potentially result in a sympatho-excitatory response, further increasing resting SBP. Therefore, there is a need to explore other dosage regimens that could result in a decrease in SBP.
To compare the blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) response of pain-free, normotensive adults when receiving unilateral posterior-to-anterior mobilization (PA) applied to the neck versus its corresponding placebo (PA-P).
Double-Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial.
44 (18 females) healthy, pain-free participants (mean age, 23.8 ± 3.04 years) were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 groups. Group 1 received a PA-P in which light touch was applied to the right 6th cervical vertebra. Group 2 received a PA to the same location. BP and HR were measured prior to, during, and after the application of PA or PA-P. A mixed-effect model of repeated measure analysis was used for statistical analysis.
During-intervention, the PA group had a significant reduction in SBP, while the placebo group had an increase in SBP. The change in SBP during-intervention was significantly different between the PA and the placebo group (p-value = 0.003). There were no significant between-group differences found for HR and diastolic BP (DBP). The overall group-by-time interaction was statistically significant for SBP (p-value = 0.01).
When compared to placebo, the dosage of applied PA resulted in a small, short-lived drop in SBP not exceeding the minimal detectable change. Trial registered at Germanctr.de (DRKS00005095).
一些血压正常的患者在急性颈痛时会出现静息收缩压（SBP）升高。应用典型的松动剂量可能会导致交感兴奋反应，进一步升高静息 SBP。因此，需要探索其他可能降低 SBP 的剂量方案。
比较无痛、血压正常的成年人在接受单侧后向前（PA）颈部松动与相应安慰剂（PA-P）治疗时的血压（BP）和心率（HR）反应。
双盲、随机临床试验。
44 名（18 名女性）健康、无痛的参与者（平均年龄 23.8±3.04 岁）被随机分配到 2 组中的 1 组。第 1 组接受 PA-P，即轻触右侧第 6 颈椎。第 2 组接受相同位置的 PA。在应用 PA 或 PA-P 之前、期间和之后测量 BP 和 HR。采用重复测量混合效应模型进行统计分析。
在干预期间，PA 组 SBP 显著降低，而安慰剂组 SBP 升高。干预期间 SBP 的变化在 PA 组和安慰剂组之间有显著差异（p 值=0.003）。HR 和舒张压（DBP）在两组之间无显著差异。SBP 的总体组间时间交互作用具有统计学意义（p 值=0.01）。
与安慰剂相比，应用 PA 的剂量导致 SBP 短暂、轻微下降，未超过最小可检测变化。试验在 Germanctr.de（DRKS00005095）注册。
