Abdominal-only Compression Garments Reduce Orthostatic Tachycardia and Improve Symptoms in Patients With Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Compression garments are a relatively inexpensive and easy-to-implement treatment, but the longer term benefits of abdominal compression in a real-world setting are not known. In this study we sought to evaluate commercially available abdominal compression garments in a real-world setting in patients with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). METHODS: Participants completed four 10-minute active stand tests, with and without an abdominal compression garment, in the morning (Test #1: AM-OFF; Test #2: AM-ON) and afternoon (Test #3: PM-ON; Test #4: PM-OFF). Participants held medication that could augment heart rate (HR) and blood pressure during this 1-day study. A Holter monitor was used to record HR and participants recorded their symptoms using the Vanderbilt Orthostatic Symptom Score at the end of each standing test (range 0-90, where 0 = no symptoms). Continuous data are presented as median (25th-75th percentile). RESULTS: Standing HR (103 [91-114] vs 118 [99-134], P = 0.002) and change in HR with upright posture compared with supine (27 [19-42] vs 41 [26-48], P < 0.001) were reduced, and symptoms improved (29 [16-45] vs 35 [25-60], P = 0.005), during AM-ON compared with AM-OFF. When the garment was removed after several hours of use (PM-ON vs PM-OFF), standing HR (P = 0.04), ΔHR (P = 0.01), and symptoms (P = 0.02) increased. CONCLUSIONS: Commercially available abdominal compression garments reduced HR and improved symptoms both acutely and after several hours of use. Abdominal compression garments may provide a good alternative to full waist-high compression garments in patients with POTS. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04881318.
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) | 0.000 | 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".