Slow Deep Breathing dan Alternate Nostril Breathing terhadap Penurunan Tekanan Darah pada Pasien Hipertensi

Q: What are the key findings of this study?

Slow deep breathing reduced median systolic BP by 20 mmHg (p<0.001) over 4 weeks compared to 10 mmHg (p<0.001) with alternate nostril breathing in hypertensive patients.

Q: What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Population: Primary/essential hypertension (n=36). Intervention: Slow Deep Breathing vs. Alternate Nostril Breathing (5 minutes once daily, 4 days per week). Primary outcome: Systolic blood pressure at 4 weeks (mmHg) (p=<0.001).

Q: What does this research mean for the field?

Slow deep breathing is significantly more effective than alternate nostril breathing at reducing systolic and diastolic blood pressure in hypertensive patients. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

Q: What question did this study set out to answer?

To assess and compare the effectiveness of slow deep breathing and alternate nostril breathing on lowering blood pressure in patients with hypertension.

Faradilla Miftah Suranata; Agung Dwi Waluyo; Wati Jumaiyah; Dhea Natashia

doi:10.31539/jks.v2i2.702

June 19, 2019Jurnal Keperawatan SilampariOpen Access

Slow Deep Breathing dan Alternate Nostril Breathing terhadap Penurunan Tekanan Darah pada Pasien Hipertensi

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Key result

Slow deep breathing reduces systolic BP by ~20 mmHg, outperforming alternate nostril breathing.

P<0.001
n=36

Why the study?

The comparative effectiveness of slow deep breathing and alternate nostril breathing in reducing blood pressure among patients with hypertension needed to be determined.

Key Points

To assess and compare the effectiveness of slow deep breathing and alternate nostril breathing on lowering blood pressure in patients with hypertension.
Quasi-experimental study with a pretest-posttest group design conducted among patients with essential hypertension (N=36) in Puskesmas Koya, Minahasa.
Participants were assigned to either slow deep breathing or alternate nostril breathing groups, with blood pressure evaluated at baseline, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks using sphygmomanometers and stethoscopes.
In the slow deep breathing group, Friedman testing revealed significant differences over time in systolic (x2 = 34.09; p < 0.001) and diastolic blood pressure (x2 = 28.74; p < 0.001), with post hoc testing yielding p = 0.001 for both parameters.
In the alternate nostril breathing group, differences occurred in systolic (x2 = 15.50; p < 0.001) and diastolic blood pressure (x2 = 17.18; p < 0.001), with post hoc tests showing decreases at p = 0.005 and p = 0.025, respectively.
Slow deep breathing was determined to be substantially more effective at lowering blood pressure than alternate nostril breathing.

PICO

P

Population

36 adults (mean age ~61 years, 61.11% female, age range 39-71) with primary hypertension treated with once-daily amlodipine and free of major comorbidities in Minahasa, Indonesia, followed for 4 weeks.

I

Intervention / Comparator

Slow Deep Breathing vs Alternate Nostril Breathing (5 minutes once daily, 4 days per week) (5 minutes once daily, 4 days per week)

O

Primary Outcome

Systolic blood pressure at 4 weeks (mmHg), p=<0.001

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 132.22% vs 143.33%

p-value: p=<0.001

Limitations

Quasi-experimental design rather than a full randomized clinical trial
Small sample size (n=36)
No statistical test directly comparing blood pressure changes between the two intervention groups was performed
Baseline differences in confounding variables (higher rates of smoking history and obesity in the alternate nostril breathing group)

Ask about this paper

Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.

Implication

May favor slow deep breathing over alternate nostril breathing for hypertension; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of slow deep breathing and alternate nostril breathing on reducing blood pressure in patients with hypertension. This study uses a quasi-experimental design with a pretest-posttest group design approach. Friedman test results showed that there were differences in systolic blood pressure (x2 = 34.09; p <0.001) and diastolic (x2 = 28.74; p <0.001) in the slow deep breathing intervention group. Based on the post hoc test, measurements from time to time obtained p values (p = 0.001) for both systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Meanwhile there were differences in blood pressure in the alternate nostril systolic breathing group (x2 = 15.50; p <0.001), diastolic (x2 = 17.18; p <0.001). Post hoc test found a significant decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure from each measurement time during the intervention period with p values 0.005 and 0.025, respectively. Conclusion, in this study that slow deep breathing is much more effective in reducing blood pressure in hypertensive patients.

Discussion

No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.

Cite This Study

Suranata et al. (2019) studied Primary/essential hypertension (n=36). Slow Deep Breathing vs. Alternate Nostril Breathing (5 minutes once daily, 4 days per week) was evaluated on Systolic blood pressure at 4 weeks (mmHg) (p=<0.001). Slow deep breathing reduced median systolic BP by 20 mmHg (p<0.001) over 4 weeks compared to 10 mmHg (p<0.001) with alternate nostril breathing in hypertensive patients.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6ae72b8758bffcc75722c6e6 https://doi.org/10.31539/jks.v2i2.702

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Slow Deep Breathing dan Alternate Nostril Breathing terhadap Penurunan Tekanan Darah pada Pasien Hipertensi

Key Points

PICO

Main Result

Limitations

Ask about this paper

Implication

Abstract

Discussion

Cite This Study

Slow Deep Breathing dan Alternate Nostril Breathing terhadap Penurunan Tekanan Darah pada Pasien Hipertensi

Key Points

PICO

Main Result

Limitations

Ask about this paper

Implication

Abstract

Discussion

Cite This Study

Keep reading

Keep reading