Mediators of a brief hypnosis intervention to control side effects in breast surgery patients: response expectancies and emotional distress.

OBJECTIVE: The present study was designed to test the hypotheses that response expectancies and emotional distress mediate the effects of an empirically validated presurgical hypnosis intervention on postsurgical side effects (i.e., pain, nausea, and fatigue). METHOD: Women (n = 200) undergoing breast-conserving surgery (mean age = 48.50 years; 63% White, 15% Hispanic, 13% African American, and 9% other) were randomized to a hypnosis or to an attention control group. Prior to surgery, patients completed assessments of hypothesized mediators (response expectancies and emotional distress), and following surgery, patients completed assessments of outcome variables (pain, nausea, and fatigue). RESULTS: Structural equation modeling revealed the following: (a) Hypnotic effects on postsurgical pain were partially mediated by pain expectancy (p < .0001) but not by distress (p = .12); (b) hypnotic effects on postsurgical nausea were partially mediated by presurgical distress (p = .02) but not by nausea expectancy (p = .10); and (c) hypnotic effects on postsurgical fatigue were partially mediated by both fatigue expectancy (p = .0001) and presurgical distress (p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate the mediational roles of response expectancies and emotional distress in clinical benefits associated with a hypnotic intervention for breast cancer surgical patients. More broadly, the results improve understanding of the underlying mechanisms responsible for hypnotic phenomena and suggest that future hypnotic interventions target patient expectancies and distress to improve postsurgical recovery.

Hypnosis decreases presurgical distress in excisional breast biopsy patients.

BACKGROUND: Excisional breast biopsy is associated with presurgical psychological distress. Such distress is emotionally taxing, and may have negative implications for postsurgical side effects and satisfaction with anesthesia. We investigated the ability of a brief hypnosis session to reduce presurgical psychological distress in excisional breast biopsy patients. METHODS: Ninety patients presenting for excisional breast biopsy were randomly assigned to receive either a 15-minute presurgery hypnosis session (n = 49, mean age: 46.4 (95% CI: 42.3-50.4)) or a 15-minute presurgery attention control session (n = 41, mean age: 45.0 (95% CI: 40.8-49.2)). The hypnosis session involved suggestions for increased relaxation and decreased distress. The attention control session involved nondirective empathic listening. Presurgery distress was measured using visual analog scales (VAS) and the short version of the Profile of Mood States (SV-POMS). Data were analyzed using analysis of variance and chi2 procedures. RESULTS: Groups did not differ in terms of the following: demographics (age, education, ethnicity, marital status, all P's > 0.28); medical variables (presurgery diagnosis, previous excisional biopsy, previous breast cancer, all P's > 0.11); or preintervention distress (SV-POMS P > 0.74) assessed on the day of surgery. Postintervention, and before surgery, patients in the hypnosis group had significantly lower mean values for presurgery VAS emotional upset (16.5 vs 38.2, P < 0.0001, d = .85), VAS depressed mood (6.6 vs 19.9, P < 0.02, d = .67), and SV-POMS anxiety (10.0 vs 5.0, P < 0.0001, d = 0.85); and significantly higher levels for VAS relaxation (75.7 vs 54.2, P < 0.001, d = -0.76) than attention controls. CONCLUSIONS: The study results indicate that a brief presurgery hypnosis intervention can be an effective means of controlling presurgical distress in women awaiting diagnostic breast cancer surgery.

A randomized clinical trial of a brief hypnosis intervention to control side effects in breast surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer surgery is associated with side effects, including postsurgical pain, nausea, and fatigue. We carried out a randomized clinical trial to test the hypotheses that a brief presurgery hypnosis intervention would decrease intraoperative anesthesia and analgesic use and side effects associated with breast cancer surgery and that it would be cost effective. METHODS: We randomly assigned 200 patients who were scheduled to undergo excisional breast biopsy or lumpectomy (mean age 48.5 years) to a 15-minute presurgery hypnosis session conducted by a psychologist or nondirective empathic listening (attention control). Patients were not blinded to group assignment. Intraoperative anesthesia use (i.e., of the analgesics lidocaine and fentanyl and the sedatives propofol and midazolam) was assessed. Patient-reported pain and other side effects as measured on a visual analog scale (0-100) were assessed at discharge, as was use of analgesics in the recovery room. Institutional costs and time in the operating room were assessed via chart review. RESULTS: Patients in the hypnosis group required less propofol (means = 64.01 versus 96.64 microg; difference = 32.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.95 to 61.30) and lidocaine (means = 24.23 versus 31.09 mL; difference = 6.86; 95% CI = 3.05 to 10.68) than patients in the control group. Patients in the hypnosis group also reported less pain intensity (means = 22.43 versus 47.83; difference = 25.40; 95% CI = 17.56 to 33.25), pain unpleasantness (means = 21.19 versus 39.05; difference = 17.86; 95% CI = 9.92 to 25.80), nausea (means = 6.57 versus 25.49; difference = 18.92; 95% CI = 12.98 to 24.87), fatigue (means = 29.47 versus 54.20; difference = 24.73; 95% CI = 16.64 to 32.83), discomfort (means = 23.01 versus 43.20; difference = 20.19; 95% CI = 12.36 to 28.02), and emotional upset (means = 8.67 versus 33.46; difference = 24.79; 95% CI = 18.56 to 31.03). No statistically significant differences were seen in the use of fentanyl, midazolam, or recovery room analgesics. Institutional costs for surgical breast cancer procedures were $8561 per patient at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. Patients in the hypnosis group cost the institution $772.71 less per patient than those in the control group (95% CI = 75.10 to 1469.89), mainly due to reduced surgical time. CONCLUSIONS: Hypnosis was superior to attention control regarding propofol and lidocaine use; pain, nausea, fatigue, discomfort, and emotional upset at discharge; and institutional cost. Overall, the present data support the use of hypnosis with breast cancer surgery patients.

Role of glucocorticoids in mediating effects of fasting and diabetes on hypothalamic gene expression.

BACKGROUND: Fasting and diabetes are characterized by elevated glucocorticoids and reduced insulin, leptin, elevated hypothalamic AGRP and NPY mRNA, and reduced hypothalamic POMC mRNA. Although leptin replacement can reverse changes in hypothalamic gene expression associated with fasting and diabetes, leptin also normalizes corticosterone; therefore the extent to which the elevated corticosterone contributes to the regulation of hypothalamic gene expression in fasting and diabetes remains unclear. To address if elevated corticosterone is necessary for hypothalamic responses to fasting and diabetes, we assessed the effects of adrenalectomy on hypothalamic gene expression in 48-hour-fasted or diabetic mice. To assess if elevated corticosterone is sufficient for the hypothalamic responses to fasting and diabetes, we assessed the effect of corticosterone pellets implanted for 48 hours on hypothalamic gene expression. RESULTS: Fasting and streptozotocin-induced diabetes elevated plasma glucocorticoid levels and reduced serum insulin and leptin levels. Adrenalectomy prevented the rise in plasma glucocorticoids associated with fasting and diabetes, but not the associated reductions in insulin or leptin. Adrenalectomy blocked the effects of fasting and diabetes on hypothalamic AGRP, NPY, and POMC expression. Conversely, corticosterone implants induced both AGRP and POMC mRNA (with a non-significant trend toward induction of NPY mRNA), accompanied by elevated insulin and leptin (with no change in food intake or body weight). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that elevated plasma corticosterone mediate some effects of fasting and diabetes on hypothalamic gene expression. Specifically, elevated plasma corticosterone is necessary for the induction of NPY mRNA with fasting and diabetes; since corticosterone implants only produced a non-significant trend in NPY mRNA, it remains uncertain if a rise in corticosterone may be sufficient to induce NPY mRNA. A rise in corticosterone is necessary to reduce hypothalamic POMC mRNA with fasting and diabetes, but not sufficient for the reduction of hypothalamic POMC mRNA. Finally, elevated plasma corticosterone is both necessary and sufficient for the induction of hypothalamic AGRP mRNA with fasting and diabetes.

Adrenalectomy stimulates hypothalamic proopiomelanocortin expression but does not correct diet-induced obesity.

BACKGROUND: Elevated glucocorticoid production and reduced hypothalamic POMC mRNA can cause obese phenotypes. Conversely, adrenalectomy can reverse obese phenotypes caused by the absence of leptin, a model in which glucocorticoid production is elevated. Adrenalectomy also increases hypothalamic POMC mRNA in leptin-deficient mice. However most forms of human obesity do not appear to entail elevated plasma glucocorticoids. It is therefore not clear if reducing glucocorticoid production would be useful to treat these forms of obesity. We hypothesized that adrenalectomy would increase hypothalamic POMC mRNA and reverse obese phenotypes in obesity due to a high-fat diet as it does in obesity due to leptin deficiency. RESULTS: Retired breeder male mice were placed on a high-fat diet or a low-fat diet for two weeks, then adrenalectomized or sham-adrenalectomized. The high-fat diet increased body weight, adiposity, and plasma leptin, led to impaired glucose tolerance, and slightly stimulated hypothalamic proopiomelanocortin (POMC) expression. Adrenalectomy of mice on the high-fat diet significantly reduced plasma corticosterone and strikingly increased both pituitary and hypothalamic POMC mRNA, but failed to reduce body weight, adiposity or leptin, although slight improvements in glucose tolerance and metabolic rate were observed. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that neither reduction of plasma glucocorticoid levels nor elevation of hypothalamic POMC expression is effective to significantly reverse diet-induced obesity.

The effectiveness of adjunctive hypnosis with surgical patients: a meta-analysis.

UNLABELLED: Hypnosis is a nonpharmacologic means for managing adverse surgical side effects. Typically, reviews of the hypnosis literature have been narrative in nature, focused on specific outcome domains (e.g., patients' self-reported pain), and rarely address the impact of different modes of the hypnosis administration. Therefore, it is important to take a quantitative approach to assessing the beneficial impact of adjunctive hypnosis for surgical patients, as well as to examine whether the beneficial impact of hypnosis goes beyond patients' pain and method of the administration. We conducted meta-analyses of published controlled studies (n = 20) that used hypnosis with surgical patients to determine: 1) overall, whether hypnosis has a significant beneficial impact, 2) whether there are outcomes for which hypnosis is relatively more effective, and 3) whether the method of hypnotic induction (live versus audiotape) affects hypnosis efficacy. Our results revealed a significant effect size (D = 1.20), indicating that surgical patients in hypnosis treatment groups had better outcomes than 89% of patients in control groups. No significant differences were found between clinical outcome categories or between methods of the induction of hypnosis. These results support the position that hypnosis is an effective adjunctive procedure for a wide variety of surgical patients. IMPLICATIONS: A meta-analytical review of studies using hypnosis with surgical patients was performed to determine the effectiveness of the procedure. The results indicated that patients in hypnosis treatment groups had better clinical outcomes than 89% of patients in control groups. These data strongly support the use of hypnosis with surgical patients.