Effects of surgical and FFP2 masks on cardiopulmonary exercise capacity in patients with heart failure.

AIMS: Surgical and FFP2 masks are recommended to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The cardiopulmonary effects of facemasks in patients with chronic heart failure are unknown. This prospective, cross-over study quantified the effects of wearing no mask (nm), surgical mask (sm), and FFP2 mask (ffpm) in patients with stable heart failure. METHODS: 12 patients with clinically stable chronic heart failure (HF) (age 63.8±12 years, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 43.8±11%, NTProBNP 573±567 pg/ml) underwent spiroergometry with and without masks in a randomized sequence. Comfort/discomfort was assessed using a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: Maximum power was reduced with both types of masks (nm: 108.3 W vs. sm: 101.2 W vs. ffpm: 95.6 W, p<0.01). Maximum respiratory oxygen uptake (1499ml/min vs. 1481 ml/min vs. 1300 ml/min, p = 0.95 and <0.01), peak ventilation (62.1 l/min vs. 56.4 l/min vs. 50.3 l/min, p = 0.15 and p<0.05) and O2-pulse (11.6 ml/beat vs. 11.8 ml/beat vs. 10.6 ml/beat, p = 0.87 and p<0.01) were significantly changed with ffpm but not sm. Discomfort was moderately but significantly increased (nm: 1.6 vs. sm: 3.4 vs. ffpm: 4.4, p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Both surgical and FFP masks reduce exercise capacity in heart failure patients, while FFP2 masks reduce oxygen uptake and peak ventilation. This reduction in cardiopulmonary performance should be considered in heart failure patients whose daily life activities are often just as challenging as exercise is for healthy adults.

Effects of Medical Face Masks on Physical Performance in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease or Hypertension.

In this randomized, prospective monocentric study, 40 subjects with coronary artery disease or hypertension (cardiovascular disease [CVD] group) were assigned to either surgical mask (SM) or class 2 filtering facepiece mask (FFP2). They performed cycle ergometry exercise tests with progressive intensity until exhaustion with the assigned mask and another test with no mask (NM) in random order. A control group of 10 healthy subjects randomly performed 3 exercise tests with NM, SM, and FFP2, respectively. Blood pressure, heart rate, 12-lead electrocardiogram, exertion, shortness of breath, and capillary blood gases from the earlobe were documented. Across all groups, exercise testing with face masks resulted in a significantly reduced peak power output in watts compared with testing with NM (CVD group: SM vs NM: -5.0 ± 7.0%, p = 0.005; FFP2 vs NM: -4.7 ± 14%, p = 0.03; control group: SM vs NM: -6.8 ± 4.4%, p = 0.008; FFP2 vs NM: -8.9 ± 6.3%; p = 0.01) without differences in hemodynamic parameters, such as maximum heart rate and systolic blood pressure. Wearing an FFP2 compared with NM resulted in significant higher carbon dioxide partial pressure (CVD group: FFP2: 36.0 ± 3.2 mm Hg vs NM: 33.3 ± 4.4 mm Hg, p = 0.019; control group: FFP2: 32.6 ± 2.8 mm Hg vs NM: 28.1 ± 1.7 mm Hg, p <0.001) with corresponding differences in hydrogen carbonate and base excess, but not to a clinically critical extent. In conclusion, exercise testing with SM and FFP2 resulted in a significant reduction of peak power output without differences in hemodynamic parameters in subjects with preexisting CVD and in healthy subjects.

Impact of COVID-19 lockdown on endurance capacity of elite handball players.

BACKGROUND: The lockdown due to the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has far-reaching consequences for professional sports in Germany. The aim of the present study was to investigate the impact of the eight-week lockdown on endurance capacity of elite male handball players. METHODS: Ten male athletes (192±8 cm and 96±6 kg) from the first German handball league participated in the study. The effects of training on shuttle run tests between period 1 (P1: pre-season to mid-season) and period 2 (P2: mid-season to time after lockdown) were compared. The maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max) was assessed using an incremental exercise test (IET) (July 2019 and May 2020). RESULTS: During the COVID-19 lockdown, the athletes completed an instructed home-based strength and endurance program (52/48). The training effects were found to be reduced after the 8-weeks of COVID-19 lockdown (period 2) as compared to period 1 (mean difference 249±248 m, P=0.005). There was no significant difference in the running distance (2358±430 m vs. 2400±362 m, respectively, P=0.70) after the lockdown as compared to the pre-seasonal performance. VO2max (46.6±5.1 vs. 49.4±7.0 mL/kg/min, respectively, P=0.12) and the power output (3.13±0.36 vs. 3.13±0.43 W/kg, respectively, P=1.0) also did not differ between pre-season and after COVID-19 lockdown. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 lockdown led to a reduction in endurance capacity of elite handball players without team training, despite a home-based strength and endurance program. Supervision of individual home-based training is highly recommended to avoid inadequate implementation of the training.

Effects of surgical and FFP2/N95 face masks on cardiopulmonary exercise capacity.

BACKGROUND: Due to the SARS-CoV2 pandemic, medical face masks are widely recommended for a large number of individuals and long durations. The effect of wearing a surgical and a FFP2/N95 face mask on cardiopulmonary exercise capacity has not been systematically reported. METHODS: This prospective cross-over study quantitated the effects of wearing no mask (nm), a surgical mask (sm) and a FFP2/N95 mask (ffpm) in 12 healthy males (age 38.1 ± 6.2 years, BMI 24.5 ± 2.0 kg/m2). The 36 tests were performed in randomized order. The cardiopulmonary and metabolic responses were monitored by ergo-spirometry and impedance cardiography. Ten domains of comfort/discomfort of wearing a mask were assessed by questionnaire. RESULTS: The pulmonary function parameters were significantly lower with mask (forced expiratory volume: 5.6 ± 1.0 vs 5.3 ± 0.8 vs 6.1 ± 1.0 l/s with sm, ffpm and nm, respectively; p = 0.001; peak expiratory flow: 8.7 ± 1.4 vs 7.5 ± 1.1 vs 9.7 ± 1.6 l/s; p < 0.001). The maximum power was 269 ± 45, 263 ± 42 and 277 ± 46 W with sm, ffpm and nm, respectively; p = 0.002; the ventilation was significantly reduced with both face masks (131 ± 28 vs 114 ± 23 vs 99 ± 19 l/m; p < 0.001). Peak blood lactate response was reduced with mask. Cardiac output was similar with and without mask. Participants reported consistent and marked discomfort wearing the masks, especially ffpm. CONCLUSION: Ventilation, cardiopulmonary exercise capacity and comfort are reduced by surgical masks and highly impaired by FFP2/N95 face masks in healthy individuals. These data are important for recommendations on wearing face masks at work or during physical exercise.