Key result
Head-up tilt table testing detected orthostatic hypotension in 19% of patients versus 37% with active standing testing, which had 49.0% sensitivity and 65.5% specificity compared to HUT.
Why the study?
Is the head-up tilt table test preferable to the active standing test for diagnosing clinically significant orthostatic hypotension in older adults?
Population
290 geriatric patients undergoing evaluation for orthostatic hypotension
Comparison
Head-up tilt table (HUT) test vs Active standing test (AST)
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Active standing may overestimate orthostatic hypotension prevalence in older adults; leaves open whether tilt testing better identifies clinically relevant cases.
Cross-Sectional (n=290)
Is the head-up tilt table test preferable to the active standing test for diagnosing clinically significant orthostatic hypotension in older adults?
Absolute Event Rate: 19% vs 37%
The head-up tilt table test identifies a more clinically relevant phenotype of orthostatic hypotension in older adults compared to the active standing test, correlating better with geriatric syndromes.
Aydın et al. (2017) conducted a cross-sectional in orthostatic hypotension (n=290). Head-up tilt table (HUT) test vs. Active standing test (AST) was evaluated on Prevalence of orthostatic hypotension. Head-up tilt table testing detected orthostatic hypotension in 19% of patients versus 37% with active standing testing, which had 49.0% sensitivity and 65.5% specificity compared to HUT.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: