ABSTRACT
Objective: This investigation aimed to evaluate SpO2, and the rate of perceived exertion (RPE) derived from a strength training session in two distinct scenarios: normal condition versus the usage of surgical masks for COVID-19 prevention. Methods: Fifteen trained men (81.66 ± 8.37 kg;177.66 ± 6.31 cm;26.88 ± 5.55 years of age;12.17 ± 5.98 % fat;1.15 ± 0.19 kg/kg bench press relative strength/body weight) were selected, and they performed two test sessions to determine 10-RM loads for all exercises adjusted for 80%. The SpO2 measurement was verified immediately after each set for every exercise, and, concomitantly, the participants were asked to identify their RPE to provide a subjective measure of fatigue. In the first session, subjects performed the training routine using the SARS-CoV-2 protection surgical mask with a passive rest interval of 2 minutes, but the second was performed without wearing a surgical mask. Results: The SpO2 showed a difference (p = 0.03) under the condition curve with the mask (481.33 ± 3.04) versus without the mask (484.46 ± 5.96), with increments in SpO2 for the condition without the mask at different verification times (p = 0.039). Regarding the initial sets and exercises, there were no significant differences between the RPE values between the different conditions, that is, regardless of the mask use (p = 0.052). However, for the final exercises, significant differences were observed in the second set (PD, p = 0.01;LC, p = 0.02) and in the three sets of the TE exercise (p = 0.006). Conclusion: Overall, we found that the use of surgical masks reduces SpO2 and increases RPE in a strength training session. © 2022, Drustvo Pedagoga Tjelesne i Zdravstvene Kulture. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Background and importanceThe COVID-19 vaccines have shown excellent safety and efficacy profiles. Healthcare workers (HCW), a priority group for vaccination in Portugal, were probably the first to receive mixed vaccines for COVID-19. A previous study reported more adverse events (AE) after using two different COVID-19 vaccines in adults aged 50 years and older. To our knowledge, there are no data for younger individuals.Aim and objectivesTo identify and compare self-reported AE after a second dose of Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccines in HCW who received a first dose of AstraZeneca vaccine.Material and methodsProspective, cohort study, including hospital HCW who received a first dose of AstraZeneca vaccine, and a second dose of AstraZeneca (group A) or Pfizer (group B) and completed a pharmacovigilance monitoring plan. Specific local reactions and systemic events were assessed until 10 days after each dose of the vaccine by means of a questionnaire. The data were processed using SPSS 26.0.ResultsThe study included 247 HCW, mean age 41.7±10.8 years, with 75% being female. Of them, 127 were included in group A and 120 in group B. In group A, 76.4% reported at least 1 AE, with a total of 423 AE and a median of 3 (0–15). In group B, 87.5% reported at least 1 AE, with a total of 594 AE and a median of 5 (0–17). The systemic AE with higher incidence were fatigue, malaise and headache in both groups, and chills for group A and somnolence for group B. We found a statistically significant difference in the occurrence of AE (p<0.05;OR 0.462 (0.234;0.910)) and in the number of AE in both groups (p<0.05).Conclusion and relevanceThe reported AE frequency in this study is in agreement with that described by other authors. In this study, HCW receiving a second dose of Pfizer were more likely to have an AE and higher number of AE. There are some limitations, namely, post-vaccination symptom data were self-reported and not verified. Active surveillance should continue to check the vaccines’ risk/benefit ratio over time. This safety profile knowledge in younger individuals may contribute to boosting trust in vaccines.References and/or acknowledgements1. Shaw RH, Stuart A, Greenland M, Liu X, Van-Tam JSN, Snape MD. Heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccination: initial reactogenicity data. Lancet 2021;397(10289):2043–6.Conflict of interestNo conflict of interest