Key result
Hemodynamic responses to recovery from exertion following the Master two-step test were compared between subjects with labile and persistent diastolic hypertension, though no quantitative results are reported in the abstract.
Why the study?
Do hemodynamic responses to recovery from the Master two-step test differ between subjects with labile versus persistent diastolic hypertension?
Observational
Do hemodynamic responses to recovery from the Master two-step test differ between subjects with labile versus persistent diastolic hypertension?
This study aims to characterize the directly measured hemodynamic changes during recovery from the Master two-step test in patients with hypertension or healed myocardial infarction.
Does not resolve exertional recovery differences by hypertension subtype; leaves open need for quantitative prospective studies.
ALTHOUGH the two-step exercise test of Master1 has been used extensively to produce electrocardiographic changes of acute coronary artery insufficiency, results of direct- ly measured hemodynamic changes during the recovery period have not been reported.In- directly measured hemodynamic changes fol- lowing this two-step test have been reported infrequently since the tables of standardized stress were derived in 1929 from the recovery heart rates and indirect blood pressures in healthy subjects.2Measurements of the cardiac output by Fick or indicator-dilution principles have not been reported, although the total body oxygen consumption and the energy cost have been determined.5Hemo- dynamic data obtained during the change from the upright during exertion to the supine position during recovery might help explain the delay in development of maximal chest pain and of maximal ST-segment changes until the second minute of recovery, as is frequently observed in subjects with coronary artery insufficiency.6The electrocardiographic two-step test is usually restricted to individuals with normal electrocardiograms but not necessarily to those with normal cardiovascular systems.Therefore, subjects with diastolic hypertension or healed myocardial infarction were studied.None of the subjects had angina pectoris.To determine whether there is a difference in their hemodynamic responses to recovery from exertion a comparison was made between hypertensive subjects with labile diastolic hypertension and those with persistent diastolic hypertension.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Makous et al. (1964) conducted an observational in Diastolic hypertension or healed myocardial infarction. Master two-step test vs. Labile vs persistent diastolic hypertension was evaluated on Hemodynamic responses to recovery from exertion. Hemodynamic responses to recovery from exertion following the Master two-step test were compared between subjects with labile and persistent diastolic hypertension, though no quantitative results are reported in the abstract.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: