Brief meditation can help reduce a patient’s anxiety during acute medical procedures such as stereotactic breast biopsy (SBB), according to a new study published in the Journal of the American College of Radiology.
“High distress before and during SBB is uncomfortable for patients and can contribute to appointment cancelations, incomplete procedures, complications, and longer procedure times,” wrote Chelsea G. Ratcliff, PhD, of Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas, and colleagues. “Although oral anxiolytics may reduce anxiety during medical procedures, patients using these medications cannot return to work and require accompaniment by a caregiver. Thus, finding nonpharmacologic methods of reducing procedural distress has major implications for patients and the health care system.”
The authors recruited women scheduled for SBB from a single institution. All patients were 18 years old or older, right-hand dominant and able to understand and read English. Patients with formal thought disorders or those planned to take oral anxiolytics before the procedure were not included in the study. Thirty participants took part in a single session of guided meditation, another 30 took part in focused breathing (FB) and 16 participants received standard care with no additional anxiety-reducing measures.
Overall, women in the guided meditation group reported “a steeper reduction in anxiety” than woman in the other groups, according to the study. Women in the guided meditation group also had “increased beta activity during biopsy in the insula and anterior cingulate cortex” compared to women in the standard care group and “there was a trend toward the same effect” compared to women in the FB group.
“The promising findings of this small pilot trial warrant further exploration of the effects and neurologic underpinnings of mindfulness meditation as an acute, non-pharmacologic approach to anxiety management during distressing medical procedures,” Ratcliff and colleagues wrote.
The authors also noted that there were no differences in pain reported by patients in the three groups, which went against one of their primary hypotheses.
“Potentially because all participants received local anesthesia, a third of pain ratings during SBB were zero, and only 8 percent were greater than 5 on a 10-point scale,” the authors wrote. “Thus, the present intervention may have had an impact on pain had participants experienced greater pain.”
Michael has more than 16 years of experience as a professional writer and editor. He has written at length about cardiology, radiology, artificial intelligence and other key healthcare topics.