Reduced Systolic Volume: Main Pathophysiological Mechanism in Patients with Orthostatic Intolerance?
Maria Zildany P. Távora-Mehta et al. Niraj Mehta Adriano Magajevski Larissa de Oliveira … Débora Lee Smith Maluf Letícia Concato Eduardo Doubrawa Márcio Rogério Ortiz Cláudio L. Pereira da Cunha
Abstract
Background:
Orthostatic intolerance patients’ pathophysiological mechanism is still obscure, contributing to the difficulty in their clinical management.
Objective:
To investigate hemodynamic changes during tilt test in individuals with orthostatic intolerance symptoms, including syncope or near syncope.
Methods:
Sixty-one patients who underwent tilt test at – 70° in the phase without vasodilators were divided into two groups. For data analysis, only the first 20 minutes of tilting were considered. Group I was made up of 33 patients who had an increase of total peripheral vascular resistance (TPVR) during orthostatic position; and Group II was made up of 28 patients with a decrease in TPVR (characterizing insufficient peripheral vascular resistance). The control group consisted of 24 healthy asymptomatic individuals. Hemodynamic parameters were obtained by a non-invasive hemodynamic monitor in three different moments (supine position, tilt 10′ and tilt 20′) adjusted for age.
Results:
In the supine position, systolic volume (SV) was significantly reduced in both Group II and I in comparison to the control group, respectively (66.4 ±14.9 ml vs. 81.8±14.8 ml vs. 101.5±24.2 ml; p<0.05). TPVR, however, was higher in Group II in comparison to Group I and controls, respectively (1750.5± 442 dyne.s/cm5 vs.1424±404 dyne.s/cm5 vs. 974.4±230 dyne.s/cm5; p<0.05). In the orthostatic position, at 10', there was repetition of findings, with lower absolute values of SV compared to controls (64.1±14.0 ml vs 65.5±11.3 ml vs 82.8±15.6 ml; p<0.05). TPVR, on the other hand, showed a relative drop in Group II, in comparison to Group I.
Conclusion:
Reduced SV was consistently observed in the groups of patients with orthostatic intolerance in comparison to the control group. Two different responses to tilt test were observed: one group with elevated TPVR and another with a relative drop in TPVR, possibly suggesting a more severe failure of compensation mechanisms.