Comparison of the head-up tilt test and the 10-minute NASA lean test for assessing blood pressure and heart rate responses in young individuals with postacute COVID-19 syndrome.

IF 1.2 4区医学 Q4 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE

Blood Pressure Monitoring Pub Date : 2025-03-18 DOI:10.1097/MBP.0000000000000749

Nontanat Sathaporn, Aomkhwan Timinkul, Watjanarat Panwong, Parkpoom Pipatbanjong, Tanyasorn Dangwisut, Phimkan Phusabsin, Kotchaporn Promjun, Sujittra Kluayhomthong

{"title":"Comparison of the head-up tilt test and the 10-minute NASA lean test for assessing blood pressure and heart rate responses in young individuals with postacute COVID-19 syndrome.","authors":"Nontanat Sathaporn, Aomkhwan Timinkul, Watjanarat Panwong, Parkpoom Pipatbanjong, Tanyasorn Dangwisut, Phimkan Phusabsin, Kotchaporn Promjun, Sujittra Kluayhomthong","doi":"10.1097/MBP.0000000000000749","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Individuals with postacute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS) typically exhibit abnormal hemodynamic responses during upright positioning, including orthostatic hypotension and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. The 10-minute NASA lean test (NLT) has been suggested for this condition. However, no comparative study with the head-up tilt table test (HUTT) has been conducted. This study aimed to compare blood pressure and heart rate responses during the 10-minute duration of NLT and HUTT.Methods: Eighty young individuals (aged 22.0 ± 3.1 years) with PACS underwent both tests, with a 30-minute interval between tests. Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and heart rate (HR) were measured every minute, and the differences between supine and upright positions were analyzed.Results: There were no significant differences in SBP changes between HUTT and NLT (-7.8 ± 6.2 vs. -7.1 ± 7.5 mmHg) with a mean difference of -0.7 ± 9.0 mmHg. However, DBP changes were significantly lower in HUTT compared to NLT (-0.9 ± 6.4 vs. 1.5 ± 6.9 mmHg for NLT) with a mean difference of -2.4 ± 7.1 mmHg. Maximal HR was significantly lower in HUTT compared to NLT (92.0 ± 11.4 vs. 96.2 ± 10.8 bpm for NLT) with a mean difference of -4.2 ± 6.9 bpm. Additionally, HR changes were significantly lower in HUTT compared to NLT (21.5 ± 8.1 vs. 27.0 ± 9.0 bpm) with a mean difference of -5.4 ± 6.4 bpm.Conclusion: The NLT demonstrated comparability with the HUTT in detecting SBP changes. However, clinical applications should consider differences in measuring DBP and HR changes.","PeriodicalId":8950,"journal":{"name":"Blood Pressure Monitoring","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Blood Pressure Monitoring","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MBP.0000000000000749","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Individuals with postacute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS) typically exhibit abnormal hemodynamic responses during upright positioning, including orthostatic hypotension and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. The 10-minute NASA lean test (NLT) has been suggested for this condition. However, no comparative study with the head-up tilt table test (HUTT) has been conducted. This study aimed to compare blood pressure and heart rate responses during the 10-minute duration of NLT and HUTT.

Methods: Eighty young individuals (aged 22.0 ± 3.1 years) with PACS underwent both tests, with a 30-minute interval between tests. Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and heart rate (HR) were measured every minute, and the differences between supine and upright positions were analyzed.

Results: There were no significant differences in SBP changes between HUTT and NLT (-7.8 ± 6.2 vs. -7.1 ± 7.5 mmHg) with a mean difference of -0.7 ± 9.0 mmHg. However, DBP changes were significantly lower in HUTT compared to NLT (-0.9 ± 6.4 vs. 1.5 ± 6.9 mmHg for NLT) with a mean difference of -2.4 ± 7.1 mmHg. Maximal HR was significantly lower in HUTT compared to NLT (92.0 ± 11.4 vs. 96.2 ± 10.8 bpm for NLT) with a mean difference of -4.2 ± 6.9 bpm. Additionally, HR changes were significantly lower in HUTT compared to NLT (21.5 ± 8.1 vs. 27.0 ± 9.0 bpm) with a mean difference of -5.4 ± 6.4 bpm.

Conclusion: The NLT demonstrated comparability with the HUTT in detecting SBP changes. However, clinical applications should consider differences in measuring DBP and HR changes.

查看原文本刊更多论文

比较平视倾斜测试和10分钟NASA倾斜测试用于评估急性后COVID-19综合征年轻人血压和心率反应的比较

背景：急性后COVID-19综合征（PACS）患者在直立体位时通常表现出异常的血流动力学反应，包括体位性低血压和体位性心动过速综合征。10分钟NASA精益测试（NLT）已被建议用于这种情况。然而，没有进行与平视倾斜台试验（HUTT）的比较研究。本研究旨在比较NLT和HUTT在10分钟内的血压和心率反应。方法：80例年轻PACS患者（年龄22.0±3.1岁）分别进行两项测试，测试间隔30分钟。每分钟测量收缩压（SBP）、舒张压（DBP）和心率（HR），并分析仰卧位和直立位的差异。结果：HUTT组与NLT组收缩压变化无显著差异（-7.8±6.2 vs -7.1±7.5 mmHg），平均差异为-0.7±9.0 mmHg。然而，与NLT相比，HUTT的DBP变化明显较低（NLT为-0.9±6.4 vs. 1.5±6.9 mmHg），平均差异为-2.4±7.1 mmHg。HUTT组的最大心率明显低于NLT组（92.0±11.4比96.2±10.8 bpm），平均差值为-4.2±6.9 bpm。此外，与NLT相比，HUTT的心率变化显著降低（21.5±8.1比27.0±9.0 bpm），平均差异为-5.4±6.4 bpm。结论：NLT与HUTT在检测收缩压变化方面具有可比性。然而，临床应用应考虑测量舒张压和心率变化的差异。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Blood Pressure Monitoring 医学-外周血管病

CiteScore

2.00

自引率

7.70%

发文量

110

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Blood Pressure Monitoring is devoted to original research in blood pressure measurement and blood pressure variability. It includes device technology, analytical methodology of blood pressure over time and its variability, clinical trials - including, but not limited to, pharmacology - involving blood pressure monitoring, blood pressure reactivity, patient evaluation, and outcomes and effectiveness research. This innovative journal contains papers dealing with all aspects of manual, automated, and ambulatory monitoring. Basic and clinical science papers are considered although the emphasis is on clinical medicine. Submitted articles undergo a preliminary review by the editor. Some articles may be returned to authors without further consideration. Those being considered for publication will undergo further assessment and peer-review by the editors and those invited to do so from a reviewer pool.