ArticleFrontiers in physiology2025
Standing under pressure: hemodynamic effects of abdominal compression type and intensity in healthy adults.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Portable, Active Abdominal Compression Binder for Orthostatic Intolerance: Design and Evaluation in Healthy Subjects.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Trial
- Comparative Effects of Abdominal Bracing and Valsalva Maneuver on Cerebral and Peripheral Hemodynamics in Healthy Adults: A Randomized Crossover Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Abdominal compression is recommended to manage orthostatic intolerance in dysautonomia, but the hemodynamic effects of different compression parameters remain poorly understood. This study investigated how surface area and pressure magnitude of abdominal compression affect blood pressure and heart rate responses during active stand tests in healthy volunteers. Understanding how abdominal compression modulates hemodynamics during standing in healthy individuals will help us better understand how compression can be optimized to benefit those with dysautonomia. Methods: Two compression devices were developed: one applying circumferential pressure (40 mmHg) over a higher surface area (HSA), and another applying focal pressure to the epigastrium at either 95 mmHg (LSA-LP) or 140 mmHg (LSA-HP). Forty-seven healthy participants completed randomized 3-min active stand tests with each device and a control condition. Heart rate was measured immediately upon standing (0 min) and at 15 s, 30 s, 1 min, 2 min, and 3 min afterward. Blood pressure was measured at 1-min intervals. All measurements were normalized to supine baseline values and presented as mean ± SEM. Results: All compression modalities significantly reduced the initial heart rate increase immediately upon standing compared to control (HSA: 2.0 ± 1.1 bpm, LSA-LP: 1.8 ± 1.0 bpm, LSA-HP: 2.7 ± 1.7 bpm vs. control: 6.0 ± 1.2 bpm; all p < 0.01). HSA compression showed greater hemodynamic effects than LSA-LP, with a significantly lower normalized heart rate at 0 min (p = 0.031). HSA compression was associated with higher systolic blood pressure compared to control at 3 min (7.2 ± 0.9 vs. 3.6 ± 0.9 mmHg; p = 0.006), and LSA-HP at 1 min (7.2 ± 1.0 vs. 3.8 ± 1.5 mmHg; p = 0.049). No significant differences were found between LSA-HP and LSA-LP across any timepoint. Discussion: Surface area appears to be a more critical factor than pressure magnitude in stabilizing hemodynamics during orthostatic stress, with significant effects observed immediately upon standing. These findings provide physiological insights for optimizing compression therapy in orthostatic disorders and suggest that wider-area compression garments may offer superior hemodynamic benefits compared to focal compression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.