Key result
Transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation increased cardiac vagal activity from resting levels, but this effect did not significantly differ from sham stimulation (p=0.860) or depend on stimulation intensity.
Why the study?
The study investigated the effects of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation and different stimulation intensities on cardiac vagal activity.
Does transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation improve cardiac vagal activity compared to sham stimulation in healthy participants?
RCT (n=183)
Single-blind
Randomized to order sequences
No
Does transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation improve cardiac vagal activity compared to sham stimulation in healthy participants?
p-value: p=0.860
Transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation does not increase cardiac vagal activity more than sham stimulation, suggesting observed changes may be non-specific responses to afferent stimuli.
Transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation offers no advantage over sham; leaves open whether refined protocols or selected populations may prove effective.
The present study investigated the effects of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation on cardiac vagal activity, the activity of the vagus nerve regulating cardiac functioning. We applied stimulation on the left cymba conchae and tested the effects of different stimulation intensities on a vagally-mediated heart rate variability pagerameter (i.e., the root mean square of successive differences) as well as on subjective ratings of strength of perceived stimulation intensity and unpleasantness due to the stimulation. Three experiments (within-subject designs, M = 61 healthy participants each) were carried out: In Experiment 1, to choose one fixed stimulation intensity for the subsequent studies, we compared three preset stimulation intensities (i.e., 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 mA) with each other. In Experiment 2, we compared the set stimulation method with the free stimulation method, in which the participants were instructed to freely choose an intensity. In Experiment 3, to control for placebo effects, we compared both methods (i.e., set stimulation vs. free stimulation) with their respective sham stimulations. In the three experiments, an increase of cardiac vagal activity was found from resting to the stimulation phases. However, this increase in cardiac vagal activity was not dependent on stimulation intensity (Experiment 1), the method used to stimulate (i.e., set vs. free; Experiment 2), or whether stimulation was active or sham (Experiment 3). This pattern of results was solidly supported by Bayesian estimations. On the subjective level, higher stimulation intensities were perceived as significantly stronger and a stronger stimulation was generally also perceived as more unpleasant. The results suggest that cardiac vagal activity may be similarly influenced by afferent vagal stimuli triggered by active and sham stimulation with different stimulation intensities. Potential explanations for these findings and its implications for future research with tVNS are discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Borges et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in Healthy (n=183). Transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation vs. Sham stimulation was evaluated on Cardiac vagal activity (RMSSD) (p=0.860). Transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation increased cardiac vagal activity from resting levels, but this effect did not significantly differ from sham stimulation (p=0.860) or depend on stimulation intensity.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: