Context:Perceived stress is higher for students in various healthcare courses. Previous studies have shown that pranayama practice is beneficial for combating stress and improve cardiovascular functions but both fast and slow pranayama practice produce different physiological responses.Aim:Present study was conducted to compare the effects of commonly practiced slow and fast pranayama on perceived stress and cardiovascular functions in young health-care students.Materials and Methods:Present study was carried out in Departments of Physiology and Advanced Centre for Yoga Therapy Education and Research, JIPMER, Pondicherry. Ninety subjects (age 18-25 years) were randomized to fast pranayama (Group 1), slow pranayama (Group 2) and control group (Group 3). Group 1 subjects practiced Kapalabhati, Bhastrika and Kukkuriya Pranayama while Group 2 subjects practiced Nadishodhana, Savitri and Pranav Paranayama. Supervised pranayama training was given for 30 min, 3 times a week for the duration of 12 weeks to Groups 1 and 2 subjects by certified yoga trainer. Following parameters were recorded at the baseline and after 12 weeks of training; perceived stress scale (PSS), heart rate (HR), respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), rate pressure product (RPP), and double product (Do P).Results:There was a significant decrease in PSS scores in both Group 1 and Group 2 subjects but percentage decrease was comparable in these groups. Significant decrease in HR, DBP, RPP, and Do P was seen in only Group 2 subjects.Conclusion:This study demonstrates that both types of pranayama practice are beneficial in reducing PSS in the healthy subjects but beneficial effect on cardiovascular parameters occurred only after practicing slow pranayama.

Cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with diabetes as it is associated with a high risk of cardiac arrhythmias. Objectives: This prospective observational cross-sectional study was done to estimate the prevalence of CAN in patients with type 2 diabetes and to study its association with serum omentin and leptin levels. Methods: This study included 100 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus attending the outpatient department of JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry, India, from January 2017 to December 2018. CAN was assessed in all subjects using four cardiovascular autonomic function tests. Blood samples were collected and stored at - 80°C to estimate leptin and omentin levels. Comparison of leptin and omentin levels was done between diabetic patients with and without CAN. Results: CAN was present in 64% of the study subjects. Serum leptin levels were significantly higher in patients with CAN, whereas omentin levels, though elevated in those with CAN, were not statistically significant in diabetic patients without CAN. Conclusion: There is a high prevalence of CAN in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Leptin levels were elevated in these patients, whereas omentin levels were not significantly different between diabetic patients with and without CAN.

No abstract