4.5 Article

Orthostatic Intolerance in Long-Haul COVID after SARS-CoV-2: A Case-Control Comparison with Post-EBV and Insidious-Onset Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Patients

期刊

HEALTHCARE
卷 10, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10102058

关键词

orthostatic intolerance; long-haul COVID; myalgic encephalomyelitis; chronic fatigue syndrome (ME; CFS); tilt testing; cerebral blood flow; post-viral; insidious

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The symptoms and disease characteristics of long-haul COVID patients are similar to those of ME/CFS patients, and orthostatic intolerance plays an important role in COVID infection symptoms. Long-haul COVID is essentially the same disease as ME/CFS.
Background: As complaints of long-haul COVID patients are similar to those of ME/CFS patients and as orthostatic intolerance (OI) plays an important role in the COVID infection symptomatology, we compared 14 long-haul COVID patients with 14 ME/CFS patients with a post-viral Ebstein-Barr (EBV) onset and 14 ME/CFS patients with an insidious onset of the disease. Methods: In all patients, OI analysis by history taking and OI assessed during a tilt test, as well as cerebral blood flow measurements by extracranial Doppler, and cardiac index measurements by suprasternal Doppler during the tilt test were obtained in all patients. Results: Except for disease duration no differences were found in clinical characteristics. The prevalence of POTS was higher in the long-haul patients (100%) than in post-EBV (43%) and in insidious-onset (50%) patients (p = 0.0002). No differences between the three groups were present in the prevalence of OI, heart rate and blood pressure changes, changes in cerebral blood flow or in cardiac index during the tilt test. Conclusion: OI symptomatology and objective abnormalities of OI (abnormal cerebral blood flow and cardiac index reduction during tilt testing) are comparable to those in ME/CFS patients. It indicates that long-haul COVID is essentially the same disease as ME/CFS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据