Inspiratory Resistance Improves Postural Tachycardia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine the effect of inspiratory resistance through an impedance threshold device (ITD) on orthostatic tolerance in patients with postural tachycardia syndrome. We hypothesized that the ITD would result in a greater negative intrathoracic pressure to enhance cardiac venous return, improve stroke volume, and reduce heart rate in these patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared the effect of a sham device (sham, no resistance) versus an ITD (increased inspiratory resistance) in 26 patients with postural tachycardia syndrome in a randomized, single-blind, crossover study. Hemodynamic assessments were performed at baseline while supine and during head-up tilt to 70° for 10 minutes. We did not find differences in baseline hemodynamic parameters between the ITD and the sham devices. After 10 minutes of head-up tilt, the heart rate was lower with the ITD versus sham device (102±4 versus 109±4 beat/min, respectively; P=0.003). The ITD also improved stroke volume compared with the sham device (35±2 versus 26±1 mL; P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that increasing negative intrathoracic pressure with ITD breathing improves heart rate control in patients with postural tachycardia syndrome during upright posture. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT00962728.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".