Key result
Virtual reality distraction significantly reduced peri-procedural anxiety (SMD -0.70; 95% CI -1.15 to -0.26; p<0.001) but had no significant effect on peri-procedural pain.
Why the study?
Patients often experience significant anxiety and pain during percutaneous cardiovascular interventions, which may negatively impact outcomes, making non-pharmacological virtual reality distraction an emerging strategy.
Does virtual reality distraction reduce peri-procedural anxiety and pain in patients undergoing percutaneous cardiovascular interventions?
Meta-Analysis (n=890)
Does virtual reality distraction reduce peri-procedural anxiety and pain in patients undergoing percutaneous cardiovascular interventions?
Standardized Mean Difference: -0.7 (95% CI -1.15–-0.26)
p-value: p=< 0.001
Virtual reality distraction is an effective non-pharmacological intervention for reducing peri-procedural anxiety, though not pain or vital signs, in patients undergoing percutaneous cardiovascular interventions.
Supports VR integration for anxiety reduction in percutaneous procedures; extends non-pharmacologic adjunct evidence in interventional cardiology.
Background and Objectives: Percutaneous cardiovascular interventions (PCIs) have become a cornerstone in the management of cardiovascular diseases. However, patients often experience significant anxiety and pain during these procedures, which can negatively impact their overall experience and clinical outcomes. Virtual reality (VR) is an emerging non-pharmacological intervention designed to alleviate procedural anxiety and pain through immersive distraction techniques. Materials and Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science up to November 2024. Primary outcomes were peri-procedural anxiety and pain; secondary outcomes included vital signs, procedure duration, and safety (e.g., delirium). Continuous data were pooled using a random-effect model and reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in Stata MP v.17. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results: Ten RCTs involving 890 patients were included. VR distraction significantly reduced peri-procedural anxiety (SMD: –0.70; 95% CI: –1.15 to –0.26; p < 0.001). However, no significant differences were observed between groups for peri-procedural pain (SMD: –0.64; 95% CI: –1.45 to 0.16; p = 0.12), systolic blood pressure (SMD: –0.31; 95% CI: –1.23 to 0.61; p = 0.50), diastolic blood pressure (SMD: –0.25; 95% CI: –1.07 to 0.56; p = 0.54), heart rate (SMD: –0.44; 95% CI: –0.93 to 0.05; p = 0.08), respiratory rate (SMD: –0.93; 95% CI: –2.18 to 0.31; p = 0.14), or procedure duration (SMD: 0.07; 95% CI: –1.14 to 0.28; p = 0.49). Conclusions: VR significantly ameliorated peri-procedure anxiety in patients undergoing PCIs; however, it had no effect on peri-procedure pain or vital signs. This is based on uncertain evidence from heterogeneous studies, warranting further confirmation through large-scale RCTs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Albazee et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in Percutaneous cardiovascular interventions (n=890). Virtual reality (VR) distraction vs. Control was evaluated on Peri-procedural anxiety (SMD -0.70, 95% CI -1.15 to -0.26, p=< 0.001). Virtual reality distraction significantly reduced peri-procedural anxiety (SMD -0.70; 95% CI -1.15 to -0.26; p<0.001) but had no significant effect on peri-procedural pain.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: