Why the study?
Do cardiac preejection period (PEP) and respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) predict treatment response to behavioral intervention in preschool children with ADHD?
Do cardiac preejection period (PEP) and respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) predict treatment response to behavioral intervention in preschool children with ADHD?
Cardiac preejection period and respiratory sinus arrhythmia may serve as prospective biomarkers for behavioral traits and treatment response in preschoolers with ADHD.
Findings should not yet alter management in preschool ADHD; hypothesis-generating for PEP and RSA as treatment biomarkers.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate measures of cardiac activity and reactivity as prospective biomarkers of treatment response to an empirically supported behavioral intervention for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: Cardiac preejection period (PEP), an index of sympathetic-linked cardiac activity, and respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA), an index of parasympathetic-linked cardiac activity, were assessed among 99 preschool children (ages 4-6 years) with ADHD both at rest and in response to behavioral challenge, before participants and their parents completed 1 of 2 versions of the Incredible Years parent and child interventions. RESULTS: Main effects of PEP activity and reactivity and of RSA activity and reactivity were found. Although samplewide improvements in behavior were observed at posttreatment, those who exhibited lengthened cardiac PEP at rest and reduced PEP reactivity to incentives scored higher on measures of conduct problems and aggression both before and after treatment. In contrast, children who exhibited lower baseline RSA and greater RSA withdrawal scored lower on prosocial behavior before and after treatment. Finally, children who exhibited greater RSA withdrawal scored lower on emotion regulation before and after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: We discuss these findings in terms of (a) individual differences in underlying neurobiological systems subserving appetitive (i.e., approach) motivation, emotion regulation, and social affiliation and (b) the need to develop more intensive interventions targeting neurobiologically vulnerable children.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Beauchaine et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: