The role of nociceptive input and tissue injury on stress regulation in borderline personality disorder
The role of nociceptive input and tissue injury on stress regulation in borderline personality disorder
复制标题
伤害性输入和组织损伤对边缘性人格障碍压力调节的作用
DOI:
10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000787
复制
发表时间:
2017
期刊:
影响因子:
7.4
通讯作者:
. . . Schmahl
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
Willis;Kuniss;Kleindienst;. . . Schmahl
Abstract Approximately 60% to 90% of patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) show nonsuicidal self-injurious behavior (NSSI) with cutting being the most frequently applied method. One of NSSI’s functions is to reduce aversive tension. Previous studies have found a tension-reducing effect of painful tissue injury by an incision. It is still unclear whether this effect is based on the effect of tissue injury or the effect of pain experience, or both. The aim of this study was to determine whether tissue injury leads to a stronger stress reduction than a sole pain stimulus in patients with BPD. After stress induction, 57 BPD patients and 60 healthy controls (HCs) received either an incision or a non–tissue-injuring mechanical nociceptive stimulus (“blade”) typically perceived as painful or a nonnociceptive tactile sham stimulus (blunt end of scalpel). Participants were unaware of which procedure was applied. For stress assessment, subjective and objective parameters were measured. As immediate response to the stimulus application, we found greater stress reduction after both painful stimuli (incision and blade) in BPD patients but no difference in stress decrease between the tissue-injuring incision and the non–tissue-injuring pain stimulus (blade). Compared with HCs, incision and blade were followed by greater immediate decrease of arousal in BPD patients. Our findings confirm that among BPD patients, the nociceptive input leads to stress reduction. In contrast, the impact of tissue damage on stress reduction was relatively small. In addition, the results suggest that painful stimuli lead to a greater stress reduction in BPD patients compared with HCs.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子:
7.4
作者:
Magerl, Walter;Burkart, Daniela;Treede, Rolf-Detlef
通讯作者:
Treede, Rolf-Detlef
影响因子:
11.3
作者:
Ludaescher, Petra;Bohus, Martin;Schmahl, Christian
通讯作者:
Schmahl, Christian
影响因子:
8.8
作者:
E. Pogatzki;C. Wagner;Anne M A Meinhardt;M. Burgmer;C. Beste;P. Zahn;B. Pfleiderer
通讯作者:
B. Pfleiderer
影响因子:
11.3
作者:
Krause-Utz;Kleindienst;Willis;Kuniss;. . . Schmahl
通讯作者:
. . . Schmahl
影响因子:
10.5
作者:
Reitz, Sarah;Kluetsch, Rosemarie;Schmahl, Christian
通讯作者:
Schmahl, Christian