Clinical features of panic patients sensitive to hyperventilation or breath-holding methods for inducing panic attacks

21Citations
Citations of this article
34Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Our aim was to compare the clinical features of panic disorder (PD) patients sensitive to hyperventilation or breath-holding methods of inducing panic attacks. Eighty-five PD patients were submitted to both a hyperventilation challenge test and a breath-holding test. They were asked to hyperventilate (30 breaths/min) for 4 min and a week later to hold their breath for as long as possible, four times with a 2-min interval. Anxiety scales were applied before and after the tests. We selected the patients who responded with a panic attack to just one of the tests, i.e., those who had a panic attack after hyperventilating (HPA, N = 24,16 females, 8 males, mean age ± SD = 38.5 ± 12.7 years) and those who had a panic attack after breath holding (BHPA, N = 20, 11 females, 9 males, mean age ± SD = 42.1 ± 10.6 years). Both groups had similar (χ2 = 1.28, d.f. = 1, P = 0.672) respiratory symptoms (fear of dying, chest/pain disconfort, shortness of breath, paresthesias, and feelings of choking) during a panic attack. The criteria of Briggs et al. [British Journal of Psychiatry, 1993; 163: 201-209] for respiratory PD subtype were fulfilled by 18 (75.0%) HPA patients and by 14 (70.0%) BHPA patients. The HPA group had a later onset of the disease compared to BHPA patients (37.9 ± 11.0 vs 21.3 ± 12.9 years old, Mann-Whitney, P < 0.001), and had a higher family prevalence of PD (70.8 vs 25.0%, χ2 = 19.65, d.f. = 1, P = 0.041). Our data suggest that these two groups - HPA and BHPA patients - may be specific subtypes of PD.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Nardi, A. E., Valença, A. M., Lopes, F. L., Nascimento, I., Mezzasalma, M. A., & Zin, W. A. (2004). Clinical features of panic patients sensitive to hyperventilation or breath-holding methods for inducing panic attacks. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 37(2), 251–257. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-879X2004000200013

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free