Preprint Article Version 1 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

The Prevalence of Orthostatic Hypotension in Cancer Patients

Version 1 : Received: 19 March 2024 / Approved: 20 March 2024 / Online: 20 March 2024 (08:24:44 CET)

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

Iwański, M.A.; Sokołowska, A.; Sokołowski, A.; Wojdyła, R.; Styczkiewicz, K. The Prevalence of Orthostatic Hypotension in Cancer Patients. Cancers 2024, 16, 1541. Iwański, M.A.; Sokołowska, A.; Sokołowski, A.; Wojdyła, R.; Styczkiewicz, K. The Prevalence of Orthostatic Hypotension in Cancer Patients. Cancers 2024, 16, 1541.

Abstract

Background: Orthostatic hypotension (OH) is associated with higher risk of mortality in general population however not studied in cancer population. The study aimed to assess the prevalence of OH in cancer patients compared to the non-cancer population. Methods: A total of 411 patients (mean age 63.5 ± 10.6 years) were recruited: patients with active cancer (n = 223) and patients hospitalized for other reasons but without cancer diagnosis (n = 188). Medical history was collected and an orthostatic challenge test was performed. OH was defined as blood pressure (BP) decrease on standing ≥ 20 mmHg for systolic or ≥ 10 mmHg for diastolic BP in 1 or 3 minutes; or systolic BP decrease < 90 mmHg. Results: The prevalence of OH in cancer was significantly higher than in subjects without cancer- 28.7% vs. 16.5%, respectively, P = 0.003). OH was the most common in lung cancer, 57.5%. In single variable analysis, the predictors of OH were: cancer presence, age ≥ 65 years, and body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2. In the multivariable model, the strongest independent predictor of OH was cancer status doubling the risk of OH; BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 and diabetes. Conclusions: Cancer patients are characterized by a high prevalence of OH. In this population, the recommendation of routine orthostatic challenge tests should be considered.

Keywords

blood pressure; cancer; orthostatic hypotension

Subject

Biology and Life Sciences, Life Sciences

Comments (0)

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our Diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
* All users must log in before leaving a comment
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 0
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.