OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify optimal blood pressure cut-offs to diagnose orthostatic hypotension during a sit-to-stand manoeuvre. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of patients and healthy controls from the Vanderbilt Autonomic Dysfunction Center. Blood pressure was measured while supine, seated and standing. Blood pressure changes were calculated from supine-to-standing and seated-to-standing. Orthostatic hypotension was diagnosed on the basis of a supine-to-standing SBP drop at least 20 mmHg or a DBP drop at least 10 mmHg. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves identified optimal sit-to-stand cut-offs. RESULTS: Amongst the 831 individuals, more had systolic orthostatic hypotension [n = 354 (43%)] than diastolic orthostatic hypotension [n = 305 (37%)] during lying-to-standing. The ROC curves had good characteristics [SBP area under curve = 0.916 (95% confidence interval: 0.896-0.936), P < 0.001; DBP area under curve = 0.930 (95% confidence interval: 0.909-0.950), P < 0.001]. A sit-to stand SBP drop at least 15 mmHg had optimal test characteristics (sensitivity = 80.2%; specificity = 88.9%; positive predictive value = 84.2%; negative predictive value = 85.8%), as did a DBP drop at least 7 mmHg (sensitivity = 87.2%; specificity = 87.2%; positive predictive value = 80.1%; negative predictive value = 92.0%). CONCLUSIONS: A sit-to-stand manoeuvre with lower diagnostic cut-offs for orthostatic hypotension provides a simple screening test for orthostatic hypotension in situations wherein a supine-to-standing manoeuvre cannot be easily performed. Our analysis suggests that a SBP drop at least 15 mmHg or a DBP drop at least 7 mmHg best optimizes sensitivity and specificity of this sit-to-stand test.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify optimal blood pressure cut-offs to diagnose orthostatic hypotension during a sit-to-stand manoeuvre. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of patients and healthy controls from the Vanderbilt Autonomic Dysfunction Center. Blood pressure was measured while supine, seated and standing. Blood pressure changes were calculated from supine-to-standing and seated-to-standing. Orthostatic hypotension was diagnosed on the basis of a supine-to-standing SBP drop at least 20 mmHg or a DBP drop at least 10 mmHg. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves identified optimal sit-to-stand cut-offs. RESULTS: Amongst the 831 individuals, more had systolic orthostatic hypotension [n = 354 (43%)] than diastolic orthostatic hypotension [n = 305 (37%)] during lying-to-standing. The ROC curves had good characteristics [SBP area under curve = 0.916 (95% confidence interval: 0.896-0.936), P < 0.001; DBP area under curve = 0.930 (95% confidence interval: 0.909-0.950), P < 0.001]. A sit-to stand SBP drop at least 15 mmHg had optimal test characteristics (sensitivity = 80.2%; specificity = 88.9%; positive predictive value = 84.2%; negative predictive value = 85.8%), as did a DBP drop at least 7 mmHg (sensitivity = 87.2%; specificity = 87.2%; positive predictive value = 80.1%; negative predictive value = 92.0%). CONCLUSIONS: A sit-to-stand manoeuvre with lower diagnostic cut-offs for orthostatic hypotension provides a simple screening test for orthostatic hypotension in situations wherein a supine-to-standing manoeuvre cannot be easily performed. Our analysis suggests that a SBP drop at least 15 mmHg or a DBP drop at least 7 mmHg best optimizes sensitivity and specificity of this sit-to-stand test.
Authors: Roy Freeman; Wouter Wieling; Felicia B Axelrod; David G Benditt; Eduardo Benarroch; Italo Biaggioni; William P Cheshire; Thomas Chelimsky; Pietro Cortelli; Christopher H Gibbons; David S Goldstein; Roger Hainsworth; Max J Hilz; Giris Jacob; Horacio Kaufmann; Jens Jordan; Lewis A Lipsitz; Benjamin D Levine; Phillip A Low; Christopher Mathias; Satish R Raj; David Robertson; Paola Sandroni; Irwin Schatz; Ron Schondorff; Julian M Stewart; J Gert van Dijk Journal: Clin Auton Res Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 4.435
Authors: Mary Naccarato; Sherry Leviner; Jean Proehl; Susan Barnason; Carla Brim; Melanie Crowley; Cathleen Lindauer; Andrew Storer; Jennifer Williams; AnnMarie Papa Journal: J Emerg Nurs Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 1.836
Authors: Fabrizio Ricci; Artur Fedorowski; Francesco Radico; Mattia Romanello; Alfonso Tatasciore; Marta Di Nicola; Marco Zimarino; Raffaele De Caterina Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2015-04-06 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Sara Gabriele; Ioannis Georgiopoulos; Carlos Labat; Marina Kotsani; Sylvie Gautier; Francesco Fantin; Athanase Benetos Journal: Eur Geriatr Med Date: 2022-09-02 Impact factor: 3.269