This study was posted today on the German 'ME -Pacing mit Pulsuhr'-Facebook page: The Abnormal Cardiac Index and Stroke Volume Index Changes During a Normal Tilt Table Test in ME/CFS Patients Compared to Healthy Volunteers, are Not Related to Deconditioning C.(Linda) M.C. van Campen,Frans C. Visser* Department of Cardiology,Stichting Cardiozorg, Planetenweg, Netherlands Free access link here, just click through the buttons 'Abstract', 'Article', 'Figures', 'Tables', 'References', and 'Suggested Citation'. It seems as if this will be published in the 'Journal of Thrombosis and Circulation'.
Merged thread MEA Summary Review: Cardiac abnormalities in ME/CFS not due to deconditioning | 26 November 2018 by Charlotte Stephens, Research Correspondent, ME Association. Nov. 2018. https://www.meassociation.org.uk/20...s-not-due-to-deconditioning-26-november-2018/
Sounds interesting but I haven't had the time/energy to read the paper, Id be interested to know what others think. Link to paper by Van Campen and Visser: https://www.gavinpublishers.com/art...-Volunteers-are-Not-Related-to-Deconditioning
Recent coverage of this on Health Rising: https://www.healthrising.org/blog/2...chronic-fatigue-syndrome-deconditioning-myth/
I like the way this disputes earlier research findings, that interpreted lower heart stroke volumes and output as being due to deconditoning, thereby feeding the whole "unhelpful illness beliefs" BPS pantomime. If they are right in saying "The decrease in SVI and CI were similar and not significantly different between the mild, moderate, and severe ME groups", and that there would be significant differences if deconditiong was the cause ... then that is another nail in the coffin of the PACE hypothesis presumably, and all it implies.
Is this the only paper indicating that OI in ME isn't due to deconditioning that has come out within the past year? I seem to remember something else but might be mistaken. @Trish - tagging you because I think you keep up with all this!
“Stroke volumes and cardiac output were related to the severity of the disease.” “The absence of differences between patients with mild, moderate, and severe ME/CFS suggests...” Sorry haven’t read the paper yet, but, don’t these 2 statements contradict each other? What am I missing?
Maybe they mean that the CI and SVI contribute to disability in ME, but don't track with the different severity types. So they make the disease severe, but they don't vary if the disease is more severe. If so, it's very poor wording on their choice.
I think I may have found the answer to your question. I think the first statement refers to an action (seeing how these factors relate to one another), and the second to the outcome. The last paragraph of section 4 explains how they went about things, which I can link to the first of your sentences which is part of the 'background' section: "Moreover, it has been suggested that the larger cardiac output and stroke volume decrease in ME/CFS patients compared to HV was due to deconditioning [9]. As disease severity is inversely related physical functioning [28], the disease severity was correlated with the stroke volume and cardiac output changes." - correlated is an action too in this case. With more severe patients being less active, you'd expect a bigger change in these measures if they are 'due to deconditioning', but this wasn't the case. Hence the conclusion.