Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27849259›Full record

ArticleArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2016

Reduced Systolic Volume: Main Pathophysiological Mechanism in Patients with Orthostatic Intolerance?

Maria Zildany P Távora-Mehta, Niraj Mehta, Adriano Magajevski, Larissa de Oliveira, Débora Lee Smith Maluf, Letícia Concato, Eduardo Doubrawa, Márcio Rogério Ortiz, Cláudio L Pereira da Cunha

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Dysautonomia: A Forgotten Condition - Part 1.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Maria Zildany P Távora-MehtaHospital de Clínicas, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
Niraj MehtaHospital de Clínicas, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
Adriano MagajevskiHospital de Clínicas, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
Larissa de OliveiraHospital de Clínicas, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
Débora Lee Smith MalufHospital de Clínicas, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
Letícia ConcatoHospital de Clínicas, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
Eduardo DoubrawaHospital de Clínicas, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
Márcio Rogério OrtizHospital de Clínicas, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
Cláudio L Pereira da CunhaHospital de Clínicas, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOrthostatic intolerance patients' pathophysiological mechanism is still obscure, contributing to the difficulty in their clinical management.

objectiveTo investigate hemodynamic changes during tilt test in individuals with orthostatic intolerance symptoms, including syncope or near syncope.

methodsSixty-one patients who underwent tilt test at - 70° in the phase without vasodilators were divided into two groups. For data analysis, only the first 20 minutes of tilting were considered. Group I was made up of 33 patients who had an increase of total peripheral vascular resistance (TPVR) during orthostatic position; and Group II was made up of 28 patients with a decrease in TPVR (characterizing insufficient peripheral vascular resistance). The control group consisted of 24 healthy asymptomatic individuals. Hemodynamic parameters were obtained by a non-invasive hemodynamic monitor in three different moments (supine position, tilt 10' and tilt 20') adjusted for age.

resultsIn the supine position, systolic volume (SV) was significantly reduced in both Group II and I in comparison to the control group, respectively (66.4 ±14.9 ml vs. 81.8±14.8 ml vs. 101.5±24.2 ml; p<0.05). TPVR, however, was higher in Group II in comparison to Group I and controls, respectively (1750.5± 442 dyne.s/cm5 vs.1424±404 dyne.s/cm5 vs. 974.4±230 dyne.s/cm5; p<0.05). In the orthostatic position, at 10', there was repetition of findings, with lower absolute values of SV compared to controls (64.1±14.0 ml vs 65.5±11.3 ml vs 82.8±15.6 ml; p<0.05). TPVR, on the other hand, showed a relative drop in Group II, in comparison to Group I.

conclusionReduced SV was consistently observed in the groups of patients with orthostatic intolerance in comparison to the control group. Two different responses to tilt test were observed: one group with elevated TPVR and another with a relative drop in TPVR, possibly suggesting a more severe failure of compensation mechanisms.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnthropometryBlood PressureCase-Control StudiesHemodynamicsHumansMiddle AgedOrthostatic IntoleranceReference ValuesRetrospective StudiesSupine PositionSyncopeSystole

Identifiers

PMID27849259
PMCPMC5102482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.