Cargando…
Deconditioning does not explain orthostatic intolerance in ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome)
BACKGROUND: Orthostatic intolerance (OI) is a frequent finding in individuals with myalgic encephalomyelitis /chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). Published studies have proposed that deconditioning is an important pathophysiological mechanism in various forms of OI, including postural orthostatic tac...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8097965/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33947430 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12967-021-02819-0 |
_version_ | 1783688418540126208 |
---|---|
author | van Campen, C. (Linda) M. C. Rowe, Peter C. Visser, Frans C. |
author_facet | van Campen, C. (Linda) M. C. Rowe, Peter C. Visser, Frans C. |
author_sort | van Campen, C. (Linda) M. C. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Orthostatic intolerance (OI) is a frequent finding in individuals with myalgic encephalomyelitis /chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). Published studies have proposed that deconditioning is an important pathophysiological mechanism in various forms of OI, including postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), however conflicting opinions exist. Deconditioning can be classified objectively using the predicted peak oxygen consumption (VO(2)) values from cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET). Therefore, if deconditioning is an important contributor to OI symptomatology, one would expect a relation between the degree of reduction in peak VO(2)during CPET and the degree of reduction in CBF during head-up tilt testing (HUT). METHODS AND RESULTS: In 22 healthy controls and 199 ME/CFS patients were included. Deconditioning was classified by the CPET response as follows: %peak VO(2) ≥ 85% = no deconditioning, %peak VO(2) 65–85% = mild deconditioning, and %peak VO(2) < 65% = severe deconditioning. HC had higher oxygen consumption at the ventilatory threshold and at peak exercise as compared to ME/CFS patients (p ranging between 0.001 and < 0.0001). Although ME/CFS patients had significantly greater CBF reduction than HC (p < 0.0001), there were no differences in CBF reduction among ME/CFS patients with no, mild, or severe deconditioning. We classified the hemodynamic response to HUT into three categories: those with a normal heart rate and blood pressure response, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, or orthostatic hypotension. No difference in the degree of CBF reduction was shown in those three groups. CONCLUSION: This study shows that in ME/CFS patients orthostatic intolerance is not caused by deconditioning as defined on cardiopulmonary exercise testing. An abnormal high decline in cerebral blood flow during orthostatic stress was present in all ME/CFS patients regardless of their %peak VO(2) results on cardiopulmonary exercise testing. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12967-021-02819-0. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8097965 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80979652021-05-06 Deconditioning does not explain orthostatic intolerance in ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) van Campen, C. (Linda) M. C. Rowe, Peter C. Visser, Frans C. J Transl Med Research BACKGROUND: Orthostatic intolerance (OI) is a frequent finding in individuals with myalgic encephalomyelitis /chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). Published studies have proposed that deconditioning is an important pathophysiological mechanism in various forms of OI, including postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), however conflicting opinions exist. Deconditioning can be classified objectively using the predicted peak oxygen consumption (VO(2)) values from cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET). Therefore, if deconditioning is an important contributor to OI symptomatology, one would expect a relation between the degree of reduction in peak VO(2)during CPET and the degree of reduction in CBF during head-up tilt testing (HUT). METHODS AND RESULTS: In 22 healthy controls and 199 ME/CFS patients were included. Deconditioning was classified by the CPET response as follows: %peak VO(2) ≥ 85% = no deconditioning, %peak VO(2) 65–85% = mild deconditioning, and %peak VO(2) < 65% = severe deconditioning. HC had higher oxygen consumption at the ventilatory threshold and at peak exercise as compared to ME/CFS patients (p ranging between 0.001 and < 0.0001). Although ME/CFS patients had significantly greater CBF reduction than HC (p < 0.0001), there were no differences in CBF reduction among ME/CFS patients with no, mild, or severe deconditioning. We classified the hemodynamic response to HUT into three categories: those with a normal heart rate and blood pressure response, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, or orthostatic hypotension. No difference in the degree of CBF reduction was shown in those three groups. CONCLUSION: This study shows that in ME/CFS patients orthostatic intolerance is not caused by deconditioning as defined on cardiopulmonary exercise testing. An abnormal high decline in cerebral blood flow during orthostatic stress was present in all ME/CFS patients regardless of their %peak VO(2) results on cardiopulmonary exercise testing. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12967-021-02819-0. BioMed Central 2021-05-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8097965/ /pubmed/33947430 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12967-021-02819-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research van Campen, C. (Linda) M. C. Rowe, Peter C. Visser, Frans C. Deconditioning does not explain orthostatic intolerance in ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) |
title | Deconditioning does not explain orthostatic intolerance in ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) |
title_full | Deconditioning does not explain orthostatic intolerance in ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) |
title_fullStr | Deconditioning does not explain orthostatic intolerance in ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) |
title_full_unstemmed | Deconditioning does not explain orthostatic intolerance in ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) |
title_short | Deconditioning does not explain orthostatic intolerance in ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) |
title_sort | deconditioning does not explain orthostatic intolerance in me/cfs (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8097965/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33947430 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12967-021-02819-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vancampenclindamc deconditioningdoesnotexplainorthostaticintoleranceinmecfsmyalgicencephalomyelitischronicfatiguesyndrome AT rowepeterc deconditioningdoesnotexplainorthostaticintoleranceinmecfsmyalgicencephalomyelitischronicfatiguesyndrome AT visserfransc deconditioningdoesnotexplainorthostaticintoleranceinmecfsmyalgicencephalomyelitischronicfatiguesyndrome |