Passive standing tests for the office diagnosis of postural tachycardia syndrome: New methodological considerations

18Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Passive standing tests are a first-line, practical means of assessing individuals with chronic orthostatic symptoms. Purpose: To identify the proportion reaching heart rate (HR) criteria for postural tachycardia syndrome (POTS) during a 10-minute passive standing test (PST) if measurement of the lowest supine HR incorporated a 2-minute period of post-test monitoring, rather than being restricted to the 5-minute pre-test values only, and to determine the proportion whose POTS would be missed by shorter periods upright. Methods: Consecutive individuals ≥ 12 years from 2008 to 2017 who presented with chronic fatigue or lightheadedness and whose PST met criteria for POTS. Results: Of the 93 enrolled (70% female, median age 17 years), the mean (SD) HR was higher in the 5 min supine before the 10 min upright than in the 2 min supine afterwards (67.6 [10.0] vs. 65.7 [10.9]; P = 0.01). Thirteen (14%; 95% CI, 7–21%) satisfied HR criteria for POTS using the supine HR from only the post-test period. The median time to reaching the HR criteria for POTS was 3 min. Of those reaching HR criteria, 53% (95% CI, 43–63%) would be missed by a 2-minute and 27% (95% CI, 19–37%) by a 5-minute test. Interpretation: More adolescents and young adults are diagnosed with POTS during a 10-minute PST when the definition of their lowest supine HR includes a 2-minute post-test measurement along with the conventional pre-test measure. A full 10 min of standing is required to avoid underdiagnosing POTS in both clinical and epidemiologic studies.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Roma, M., Marden, C. L., & Rowe, P. C. (2018). Passive standing tests for the office diagnosis of postural tachycardia syndrome: New methodological considerations. Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health and Behavior, 6(4), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/21641846.2018.1512836

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