Why the study?
Does cardiovascular recovery from acute laboratory stress reliably predict daily ambulatory blood pressure in healthy adults?
Does cardiovascular recovery from acute laboratory stress reliably predict daily ambulatory blood pressure in healthy adults?
Cardiovascular recovery from acute laboratory stress is a stable individual difference variable that improves the prediction of daily ambulatory blood pressure readings.
Recovery may enhance ambulatory BP prediction beyond reactivity in healthy adults; hypothesis-generating for clinical risk models.
OBJECTIVE: We assessed the value of laboratory measures of cardiovascular recovery across four criteria: reliability across multiple tasks, reliability across a 3-year time interval, ability to predict daily ambulatory blood pressure, and interrelationships with coronary risk factors and psychosocial variables. METHODS: Three hundred twenty-nine healthy adults (mean age = 27.1 years) completed a two-part protocol consisting of 1 day of laboratory testing and 1 day of ambulatory monitoring. The laboratory protocol included a 15-minute baseline assessment followed by three 5-minute laboratory challenges (mental arithmetic, speech, and handgrip). Five-minute recovery periods followed each exercise. One hundred twenty-five participants returned after 3 years to repeat the protocol. RESULTS: When aggregated across tasks, cardiovascular recovery showed acceptable levels of internal consistency (alpha values = 0.7) and proved relatively stable across time (r values = 0.22-0.35). Recovery values statistically improved the prediction of daily ambulatory readings above baseline and stress reactivity laboratory values (p values < .001) but were largely unrelated to coronary risk factors or psychosocial measures. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that cardiovascular recovery from acute laboratory stress can be treated as a stable individual difference variable that can -improve standard laboratory-based predictor models of ambulatory readings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rutledge et al. (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: