↓ Skip to main content

Distinctive Steady-State Heart Rate and Blood Pressure Responses to Passive Robotic Leg Exercise and Functional Electrical Stimulation during Head-Up Tilt

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Distinctive Steady-State Heart Rate and Blood Pressure Responses to Passive Robotic Leg Exercise and Functional Electrical Stimulation during Head-Up Tilt
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2016.00612
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amirehsan Sarabadani Tafreshi, Robert Riener, Verena Klamroth-Marganska

Abstract

Introduction: Tilt tables enable early mobilization of patients by providing verticalization. But there is a high risk of orthostatic hypotension provoked by verticalization, especially after neurological diseases such as spinal cord injury. Robot-assisted tilt tables might be an alternative as they add passive robotic leg exercise (PE) that can be enhanced with functional electrical stimulation (FES) to the verticalization, thus reducing the risk of orthostatic hypotension. We hypothesized that the influence of PE on the cardiovascular system during verticalization (i.e., head-up tilt) depends on the verticalization angle, and FES strengthens the PE influence. To test our hypotheses, we investigated the PE effects on the cardiovascular parameters heart rate (HR), and systolic and diastolic blood pressures (sBP, dBP) at different angles of verticalization in a healthy population. Methods: Ten healthy subjects on a robot-assisted tilt table underwent four different study protocols while HR, sBP, and dBP were measured: (1) head-up tilt to 60° and 71° without PE; (2) PE at 20°, 40°, and 60° of head-up tilt; (3) PE while constant FES intensity was applied to the leg muscles, at 20°, 40°, and 60° of head-up tilt; (4) PE with variation of the applied FES intensity at 0°, 20°, 40°, and 60° of head-up tilt. Linear mixed models were used to model changes in HR, sBP, and dBP responses. Results: The models show that: (1) head-up tilt alone resulted in statistically significant increases in HR and dBP, but no change in sBP. (2) PE during head-up tilt resulted in statistically significant changes in HR, sBP, and dBP, but not at each angle and not always in the same direction (i.e., increase or decrease of cardiovascular parameters). Neither adding (3) FES at constant intensity to PE nor (4) variation of FES intensity during PE had any statistically significant effects on the cardiovascular parameters. Conclusion: The effect of PE on the cardiovascular system during head-up tilt is strongly dependent on the verticalization angle. Therefore, we conclude that orthostatic hypotension cannot be prevented by PE alone, but that the preventive effect depends on the verticalization angle of the robot-assisted tilt table. FES (independent of intensity) is not an important contributing factor to the PE effect.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Other 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 11 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 8 18%
Engineering 7 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 14%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 15 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 December 2016.
All research outputs
#17,835,502
of 22,912,409 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#7,191
of 13,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#290,993
of 419,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#122
of 223 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,912,409 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,695 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 419,352 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 223 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.