Evidence Hub

Clinical Presentation, Diagnostic Delays, and Treatment Outcomes in Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS): An Observational Case Series Study in a Single-Centre District General Hospital

Chaudhury D, Atia N, Obiechina N, Gill A, Michael A, Sampathy K

Cureus, 2025

37 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) is a heterogeneous disorder of autonomic regulation characterised by unexplained orthostatic tachycardia in the absence of postural hypotension. POTS is a complex and challenging diagnosis owing to the non-specific nature of the presentations, which frequently overlap with other medical conditions. There is limited availability of data and research describing the spectrum of clinical presentations, diagnostic pathways, comorbidities, and management outcomes. This study aims to describe the above in a single-centre district general hospital setting.

METHODS: We conducted a retrospective case series study of 37 patients diagnosed with POTS at Queen's Hospital Burton (QHB) between August 2023 and August 2024. We used electronic health records to acquire relevant data. This included demographics, presenting complaints, associated conditions, time to diagnosis, specialist involvement, management strategies, and treatment outcomes. 'Time to diagnosis' was defined as the period between the first symptom onset and obtaining a confirmed diagnosis with a positive tilt-table test. Microsoft Excel (Redmond, USA) was utilised for descriptive statistical analysis.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The cohort was predominantly female (n = 36, 97%) with a mean age of 28.2 years (SD, 8.3; range, 18-48). The most common presenting complaints were presyncope (49%) and presyncope with syncope (41%). These were often associated with palpitations…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 37 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free