4.1 Article

Observational case series describing features of cardiopulmonary exercise testing in Postural Tachycardia Syndrome (PoTS)

Journal

AUTONOMIC NEUROSCIENCE-BASIC & CLINICAL
Volume 231, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.autneu.2020.102762

Keywords

Postural Tachycardia Syndrome; Cardiopulmonary exercise testing; Peak VO2; Dysfunctional breathing

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Our study found that peak oxygen uptake, work done, and peak heart rate were significantly lower than predicted values in PoTS patients. However, most patients still demonstrated a normal exercise capacity. Features of ventilatory inefficiency were also observed, suggesting that exercise capacity in these patients may be more limited by impaired ventilatory control rather than cardiovascular issues.
Postural Tachycardia Syndrome (PoTS) is a chronic condition often affecting multiple systems with varied presenting symptoms. Diagnosis is made by demonstrating cardiovascular criteria on standing along with clinical assessment. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing has been used to demonstrate and characterise the physiological response to exercise and the severity of the syndrome. Previous studies on exercise testing in these patients have focussed on cardiovascular changes alone. This series characterises the integrated cardiac and respiratory response to exercise seen with cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Our main findings show that peak oxygen uptake, work done and peak heart rate are significantly reduced from their respective predicted values in PoTS patients. However, despite this, most patients demonstrated a normal exercise capacity. Features of ventilatory inefficiency were also seen which suggest exercise capacity in these patients may be limited more by impaired ventilatory control such as dysfunctional breathing during exercise rather than by cardiovascular issues.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available