↓ Skip to main content

Distinctive Steady-State Heart Rate and Blood Pressure Responses to Passive Robotic Leg Exercise during Head-Up Tilt: A Pilot Study in Neurological Patients

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
51 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 during Head-Up Tilt: A Pilot Study in Neurological Patients
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2017.00327
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amirehsan Sarabadani Tafreshi, Robert Riener, Verena Klamroth-Marganska

Abstract

Introduction: Robot-assisted tilt table therapy was proposed for early rehabilitation and mobilization of patients after diseases such as stroke. A robot-assisted tilt table with integrated passive robotic leg exercise (PE) mechanism has the potential to prevent orthostatic hypotension usually provoked by verticalization. In a previous study with rather young healthy subjects [average age: 25.1 ± 2.6 years (standard deviation)], we found that PE effect on the cardiovascular system depends on the verticalization angle of the robot-assisted tilt table. In the current study, we investigated in an older population of neurological patients (a) whether they show the same PE effects as younger healthy population on the cardiovascular system at different tilt angles, (b) whether changing the PE frequency (i.e., stepping speed) influences the PE effect on the cardiovascular system, (c) whether PE could prevent orthostatic hypotension, and finally, (d) whether PE effect is consistent from day to day. Methods: Heart rate (HR), and systolic and diastolic blood pressures (sBP, dBP) in response to PE at two different tilt angles (α = 20°, 60°) with three different PE frequencies (i.e., 0, 24, and 48 steps per minute) of 10 neurological patients [average age: 68.4 ± 13.5 years (standard deviation)] were measured on 2 consecutive days. Linear mixed models were used to develop statistical models and analyze the repeated measurements. Results: The models show that: PE significantly increased sBP and dBP but had no significant effect on HR. (a) Similar to healthy subjects the effect of PE on sBP was dependent on the tilt angle with higher tilt angles resulting in a higher increase. Head-up tilting alone significantly increased HR and dBP but resulted in a non-significant drop in sBP. PE, in general, had a more additive effect on increasing BP. (b) The effect of PE was not influenced by its speed. (c) Neither during head-up tilt alone nor in combination with PE did participants experience orthostatic hypotension. (d) The measurement day was not a statistically significant factor regarding the effects of verticalization and PE on the cardiovascular response. Conclusion: We provide evidence that PE can increase steady-state values of sBP and dBP in neurological patients during head-up tilt. Similar to healthy subjects the effect on sBP depends on the verticalization angle of the robot-assisted tilt table. PE might have the potential to prevent orthostatic hypotension, but as the amount of drop in BP in response to head-up tilting was not leading to orthostatic hypotension in our patients, we could neither conclude nor reject such a preventive compensatory effect. Furthermore, we found that changing the PE speed does not influence the steady-state cardiovascular response.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 16%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Master 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 14 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 22%
Engineering 6 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Neuroscience 4 8%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 16 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 06 June 2017.
All research outputs
#14,939,304
of 22,979,862 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#5,720
of 13,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,964
of 317,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#129
of 266 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,979,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,727 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
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 317,446 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 266 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.