Webster Katie E, Halicka Monika, Bowater Russell J, Parkhouse Thomas, Stanescu Dara, Punniyakotty Athitya Vel, Savović Jelena, Huntley Alyson, Dawson Sarah, Clark Christopher E, Johnson Rachel, Higgins Julian Pt, Caldwell Deborah M
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Bristol Evidence Synthesis Group, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
BMJ Med. 2025 Apr 8;4(1):e001098. doi: 10.1136/bmjmed-2024-001098. eCollection 2025.
To assess whether relaxation and stress management techniques are useful in reducing blood pressure in individuals with hypertension and prehypertension.
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Medline, PsycInfo, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from inception to 23 February 2024, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) from inception to 27 February 2024.
Studies published in English of adults with hypertension (blood pressure ≥140/90 mm Hg) or prehypertension (blood pressure ≥120/80 mm Hg but <140/90 mm Hg). Studies that compared non-pharmacological interventions used to promote relaxation or reduce stress with each other, or with a control group (eg, no intervention, waiting list, or standard care). Where possible, network meta-analysis was used to compare the efficacy of the different interventions. Studies were assessed with the risk of bias 2 tool (RoB2), and those at high risk of bias were excluded from the primary analysis. The certainty of the evidence was assessed with CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation).
182 studies were included (166 for hypertension and 16 for prehypertension). Results from a random effects network meta-analysis showed that, at short term follow-up (≤3 months), most relaxation interventions appeared to have a beneficial effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure for individuals with hypertension. Between study heterogeneity was moderate (τ=2.62-4.73). Compared with a passive comparator (ie, no intervention, waiting list, or usual care), moderate reductions in systolic blood pressure were found for breathing control (mean difference -6.65 mm Hg, 95% credible interval -10.39 to -2.93), meditation (mean difference -7.71 mm Hg, -14.07 to -1.29), meditative movement (including tai chi and yoga, mean difference -9.58 mm Hg, -12.95 to -6.17), mindfulness (mean difference -9.90 mm Hg, -16.44 to -3.53), music (mean difference -6.61 mm Hg, -11.62 to -1.56), progressive muscle relaxation (mean difference -7.46 mm Hg, -12.15 to -2.96), psychotherapy (mean difference -9.83 mm Hg, -16.24 to -3.43), and multicomponent interventions (mean difference -6.78 mm Hg, -11.59 to -1.99). Reductions were also seen in diastolic blood pressure. Few studies conducted follow-up for more than three months, but effects on blood pressure seemed to lessen over time. Limited data were available for prehypertension; only two studies compared short term follow-up of relaxation therapies with a passive comparator, and the effects on systolic blood pressure were small (mean difference -3.84 mm Hg, 95% credible interval -6.25 to -1.43 for meditative movement; mean difference -0.53 mm Hg, -2.03 to 0.97 for multicomponent intervention). The certainty of the evidence was considered to be very low based on the CINeMA framework, owing to the risk of bias in the primary studies, potential publication bias, and imprecision in the effect estimates.
The results of the study indicated that relaxation and stress management techniques might have beneficial short term effects on blood pressure for people with hypertension, but the effectiveness of these interventions is still uncertain. Future studies should ensure rigorous methods are used to minimise the risk of bias, and a longer duration of follow-up to establish whether these effects persist.
PROSPERO CRD42023469128.
评估放松和压力管理技巧对高血压和高血压前期患者降低血压是否有用。
系统评价和网状Meta分析。
从数据库建库至2024年2月23日的Medline、PsycInfo和CENTRAL(Cochrane对照试验中心注册库),以及从建库至2024年2月27日的CINAHL(护理学与健康相关文献累积索引)。
以英文发表的关于高血压(血压≥140/90 mmHg)或高血压前期(血压≥120/80 mmHg但<140/90 mmHg)成人的研究。比较用于促进放松或减轻压力的非药物干预措施相互之间或与对照组(如无干预、等待名单或标准护理)的研究。在可能的情况下,使用网状Meta分析比较不同干预措施的疗效。使用偏倚风险2工具(RoB2)评估研究,高偏倚风险的研究被排除在主要分析之外。使用CINeMA(网状Meta分析的置信度)和GRADE(推荐分级评估、制定和评价)评估证据的确定性。
纳入182项研究(166项关于高血压,16项关于高血压前期)。随机效应网状Meta分析结果显示,在短期随访(≤3个月)时,大多数放松干预措施似乎对高血压患者的收缩压和舒张压有有益影响。研究间异质性为中度(τ=2.62-4.73)。与被动对照(即无干预、等待名单或常规护理)相比,呼吸控制(平均差-6.65 mmHg,95%可信区间-10.39至-2.93)使收缩压适度降低,冥想(平均差-7.71 mmHg,-14.07至-1.29)、冥想运动(包括太极拳和瑜伽,平均差-9.58 mmHg,-12.95至-6.17)、正念(平均差-9.90 mmHg,-16.44至-3.53)、音乐(平均差-6.61 mmHg,-11.62至-1.56)、渐进性肌肉松弛(平均差-7.46 mmHg,-12.15至-2.96)、心理治疗(平均差-9.83 mmHg,-16.24至-3.43)和多成分干预(平均差-6.78 mmHg,-11.59至-1.99)也使收缩压降低。舒张压也有降低。很少有研究进行超过三个月的随访,但随着时间推移,对血压的影响似乎减弱。高血压前期的数据有限;只有两项研究将放松疗法的短期随访与被动对照进行了比较,对收缩压的影响较小(冥想运动的平均差-3.84 mmHg,95%可信区间-6.25至-1.43;多成分干预的平均差-0.53 mmHg,-2.03至0.97)。基于CINeMA框架,由于主要研究存在偏倚风险、潜在的发表偏倚以及效应估计的不精确性,证据的确定性被认为非常低。
研究结果表明放松和压力管理技巧可能对高血压患者的血压有短期有益影响,但这些干预措施的有效性仍不确定。未来的研究应确保采用严谨的方法以尽量减少偏倚风险,并进行更长时间的随访以确定这些影响是否持续存在。
PROSPERO CRD42023469128