Key result
Slow and deep breathing increases respiratory sinus arrhythmia amplitude ~2.1-fold compared to spontaneous breathing.
Why the study?
The acute cardiovascular responses to slow and deep breathing at various frequencies in pregnant versus non-pregnant women were not well characterized.
Does slow and deep breathing similarly affect respiratory sinus arrhythmia and blood pressure oscillations in normotensive pregnant compared to non-pregnant women?
Cross-Sectional (n=41)
Randomised order for conditions
No
Does slow and deep breathing similarly affect respiratory sinus arrhythmia and blood pressure oscillations in normotensive pregnant compared to non-pregnant women?
Slow and deep breathing elicits comparable acute hemodynamic improvements and amplified blood pressure oscillations in both pregnant and non-pregnant women, highlighting its potential utility as a non-pharmacological intervention for gestational hypertension.
Slow deep breathing elicits comparable acute RSA and BP effects in pregnancy; extends prior observations and supports trials for gestational hypertension.
Objective To compare the acute cardiovascular responses of non-pregnant and pregnant women to slow and deep breathing (SDB) at a range of breathing frequencies. Participants: Forty-one women (23 non-pregnant and 18 pregnant). Methods Participants completed five different breathing conditions in a randomised order (5-min duration); spontaneous breathing (S f r ), dynamic SDB breathing frequency (D f r ), and three fixed breathing frequencies of 4 breaths . min −1 (4F f r ), 6 breaths. min −1 (6F f r ), and 8 breaths. min −1 (8F f r ). Main Outcome Measures: Non-invasive beat-to-beat arterial blood pressure, heart rate and respired airflow were monitored continuously. Results The maximum amplitude of respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) during SDB was 2.1 times higher than during spontaneous breathing (S f r ) for both groups, maximising at 6 breaths . min −1 (0.25s ± 0.1 non-pregnant, 0.15s ± 0.1 pregnant). Although absolute RSA was significantly lower in pregnant women during spontaneous breathing (S f r ; 0.07s vs. 0.12s non-pregnant), SDB increased RSA to the same level as non-pregnant women’s spontaneous breathing levels. In both groups, the amplitude of blood pressure oscillations (both systolic and diastolic blood pressure) increased as breathing frequency declined, reaching a peak at 4 breaths . min −1 (4F f r ), which was up to 4.5 times higher (14.3%, 10 mmHg) than during spontaneous breathing (S f r ). Conclusion Cardiovascular responses maximised at ≤6 breaths . min −1 and acute haemodynamic responses to SDB are similar in pregnant and non-pregnant women, despite absolute differences under spontaneous breathing conditions. If blood pressure oscillations underpin the anti-hypertensive effect of SDB, the data indicate that these can be amplified in pregnant women at frequencies between 4 and 6 breaths . min −1 .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Felton et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy normotensive pregnancy (n=41). Slow and deep breathing (SDB) vs. Spontaneous breathing (Sfr) was evaluated on Amplitude of respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) and blood pressure oscillations (p=<0.001). Slow and deep breathing increased respiratory sinus arrhythmia amplitude by 2.1 times and blood pressure oscillations by up to 4.5 times compared to spontaneous breathing in both pregnant and non-pregnant women.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: