Evaluation of a brief cardiovascular autonomic screen

Lambrecht, Rein H.; McNeeley, Kevin; Tusing, Lora; Chelimsky, Thomas C.

doi:10.1016/j.autneu.2006.07.001

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To our knowledge, large-scale study to explore the CAN risk score was little known. Lambrecht et al developed a simple, rapid autonomic cardiovascular evaluation (RACE) to screen CAN in Caucasians [21]. In the study, 37 eligible patients undergoing full autonomic testing in the laboratory have been enrolled.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Simple Chinese Risk Score Model for Screening Cardiovascular Autonomic Neuropathy

Pan

Zeng

et al. 2014

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe purpose of the present study was to develop and evaluate a risk score to predict people at high risk of cardiovascular autonomic dysfunction neuropathy (CAN) in Chinese population.Methods and MaterialsA population-based sample of 2,092 individuals aged 30–80 years, without previously diagnosed CAN, was surveyed between 2011 and 2012. All participants underwent short-term HRV test. The risk score was derived from an exploratory set. The risk score was developed by stepwise backward multiple logistic regression. The coefficients from this model were transformed into components of a CAN score. This score was tested in a validation and entire sample.ResultsThe final risk score included age, body mass index, hypertension, resting hear rate, items independently and significantly (P<0.05) associated with the presence of previously undiagnosed CAN. The area under the receiver operating curve was 0.726 (95% CI 0.686–0.766) for exploratory set, 0.784 (95% CI 0.749–0.818) for validation set, and 0.756 (95% CI 0.729–0.782) for entire sample. In validation set, at optimal cutoff score of 5 of 10, the risk score system has the sensitivity, specificity, and percentage that needed subsequent testing were 69, 78, and 30%, respectively.ConclusionWe developed a CAN risk score system based on a set of variables not requiring laboratory tests. The score system is simple fast, inexpensive, noninvasive, and reliable tool that can be applied to early intervention to delay or prevent the disease in China.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Simple Chinese Risk Score Model for Screening Cardiovascular Autonomic Neuropathy

Pan

Zeng

et al. 2014

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[2] It has already been shown that standing for 3 minutes correlates poorly with a full 30-minute tilt for both change in heart rate and blood pressure. [5;10] We aimed to carry out this analysis to a full 30 minutes of tilt and standing for change in heart rate given the recent description of “delayed POTS.”[12]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosing postural tachycardia syndrome: comparison of tilt testing compared with standing haemodynamics

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Postural tachycardia syndrome (POTS) is characterized by increased heart rate (ΔHR) of ≥30 bpm with symptoms related to upright posture. Active stand (STAND) and passive head-up tilt (TILT) produce different physiological responses. We hypothesized these different responses would affect the ability of individuals to achieve the POTS HR increase criterion. Patients with POTS (n=15) and healthy controls (n=15) underwent 30 min of TILT and STAND testing. ΔHR values were analyzed at 5 min intervals. Receiver Operating Characteristics analysis was performed to determine optimal cut point values of ΔHR for both TILT and STAND. TILT produced larger ΔHR than STAND for all 5 min intervals from 5 min (38±3 bpm vs. 33±3 bpm; P=0.03) to 30 min (51±3 bpm vs. 38±3 bpm; P<0.001). Sensitivity (Sn) of the 30 bpm criterion was similar for all tests (TILT-10=93%, STAND-10=87%, TILT30=100%, and STAND30=93%). Specificity (Sp) of the 30 bpm criterion was less at both 10 and 30 min for TILT (TILT10=40%, TILT30=20%) than STAND (STAND10=67%, STAND30=53%). The optimal ΔHR to discriminate POTS at 10 min were 38 bpm (TILT) and 29 bpm (STAND), and at 30 min were 47 bpm (TILT) and 34 bpm (STAND). Orthostatic tachycardia was greater for TILT (with lower specificity for POTS diagnosis) than STAND at 10 and 30 min. The 30 bpm ΔHR criterion is not suitable for 30 min TILT. Diagnosis of POTS should consider orthostatic intolerance criteria and not be based solely on orthostatic tachycardia regardless of test used.

show abstract

“…In this setting shallow tilt angles can distinguish patients with chronic fatigue from age‐matched controls (12). More comprehensive autonomic testing batteries can identify abnormalities missed in rapid clinical screens (13,14). Referral and ascertainment bias further complicate interpretation of data regarding links between orthostasis and other complaints.…”

Section: Recognizing and Diagnosing Potsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orthostasis, the Autonomic Nervous System, and Abdominal Pain in Children: Is There a Relation Between Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia and Recurrent Abdominal Pain?

Alexander¹

2008

J. pediatr. gastroenterol. nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of a brief cardiovascular autonomic screen

Cited by 6 publications

References 13 publications

A Simple Chinese Risk Score Model for Screening Cardiovascular Autonomic Neuropathy

A Simple Chinese Risk Score Model for Screening Cardiovascular Autonomic Neuropathy

Diagnosing postural tachycardia syndrome: comparison of tilt testing compared with standing haemodynamics

Orthostasis, the Autonomic Nervous System, and Abdominal Pain in Children: Is There a Relation Between Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia and Recurrent Abdominal Pain?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About