Advertisement






Click here for more guidelines.
CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home
     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 2005; 46:1309-1313, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2005.07.011 (Published online 10 September 2005).
© 2005 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (8)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Claydon, V. E.
Right arrow Articles by Hainsworth, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Claydon, V. E.
Right arrow Articles by Hainsworth, R.

Increased Postural Sway in Control Subjects With Poor Orthostatic Tolerance

Victoria E. Claydon, PhD* and Roger Hainsworth, MB, PhD, DSc

University of Leeds, Institute for Cardiovascular Research, Leeds, United Kingdom



View larger version (15K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 1 (A) Maximum vascular resistance response to orthostatic stress in the two groups and (B) correlation between the maximum vascular resistance response to orthostatic stress and orthostatic tolerance (OT). The maximum vascular resistance response was expressed as percentage change from the supine level. There was a trend for the maximum vascular resistance response to be larger in the group with good orthostatic tolerance, but this was not statistically significant (A). There was a significant positive correlation between the maximum vascular resistance response and orthostatic tolerance (B).

 


View larger version (16K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 2 Distance and velocity of movement after 10 min of standing. The distance moved anteroposteriorly and the total distance moved were significantly greater in those with poor orthostatic tolerance (OT) (A). The velocity of movement anteroposteriorly and the mean velocity of movements were also significantly greater in those with poor orthostatic tolerance (B). Open bars = good OT; solid bars = poor OT.

 


View larger version (16K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 3 Correlation between the distance and velocity of movement after 10 min of standing and orthostatic tolerance. There was a significant correlation between the distance moved anteroposteriorly (A) and the velocity of movement in the anteroposterior direction (B) and orthostatic tolerance.

 


View larger version (18K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 4 Correlation between the distance and velocity of movement after five minutes of standing and the maximum vascular resistance response to the orthostatic stress. There was a significant correlation between the distance moved anteroposteriorly (A) and the velocity of movement in the anteroposterior direction (B) and the maximum forearm vascular resistance response.

 




 
  CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home

Advertisement