Key result
Posteriorly directed cervical spine pressure shows no effect on BP or HR versus placebo.
Why the study?
Does posteriorly directed pressure applied to the cervical spine alter blood pressure and heart rate in healthy young individuals?
RCT (n=39)
Double-blind
randomly assigned
Does posteriorly directed pressure applied to the cervical spine alter blood pressure and heart rate in healthy young individuals?
p-value: p=>.05
Cervical spine anterior-to-posterior pressure does not cause significant between-group differences in blood pressure or heart rate compared to a light touch placebo in healthy young individuals.
Cervical AP pressure produces a minor post-procedure HR drop in healthy adults; extends autonomic-response data but leaves effects in patients open.
STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. Objectives To compare the blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) response of healthy volunteers to posteriorly directed (anterior-to-posterior [AP]) pressure applied to the cervical spine versus placebo. BACKGROUND: Manual therapists employ cervical spine AP mobilizations for various cervical-shoulder pain conditions. However, there is a paucity of literature describing the procedure, cardiovascular response, and safety profile. METHODS: Thirty-nine (25 female) healthy participants (mean ± SD age, 24.7 ± 1.9 years) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups. Group 1 received a placebo, consisting of light touch applied to the right C6 costal process. Group 2 received AP pressure at the same location. Blood pressure and HR were measured prior to, during, and after the application of AP pressure. One-way analysis of variance and paired-difference statistics were used for data analysis. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between groups for mean systolic BP, mean diastolic BP, and mean HR (P >.05) for all time points. Within-group comparisons indicated statistically significant differences between baseline and post-AP pressure HR (-2.8 bpm; 95% confidence interval: -4.6, -1.1) and between baseline and post-AP pressure systolic BP (-2.4 mmHg; 95% confidence interval: -3.7, -1.0) in the AP group, and between baseline and postplacebo systolic BP (-2.6 mmHg; 95% confidence interval: -4.2, -1.0) in the placebo group. No participants reported any adverse reactions or side effects within 24 hours of testing. CONCLUSION: AP pressure caused a statistically significant physiologic response that resulted in a minor drop in HR (without causing asystole or vasodepression) after the procedure, whereas this cardiovascular change did not occur for those in the placebo group. Within both groups, there was a small but statistically significant reduction in systolic BP following the procedure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yung et al. (2014) conducted an RCT in Healthy (n=39). Posteriorly directed (anterior-to-posterior) pressure applied to the cervical spine vs. Placebo (light touch applied to the right C6 costal process) was evaluated on Mean systolic BP, mean diastolic BP, and mean HR (p=>.05). Posteriorly directed pressure applied to the cervical spine did not significantly differ from placebo in its effect on mean systolic BP, diastolic BP, or heart rate (P >.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: