ABSTRACT
Background: protective masks have emerged as a powerful mean to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. However, a general feeling that masks alter the normal dynamics of breathing may reduce the application of this protective device. Patients with heart failure (HF) experience dyspnea even during daily life activities (ADLs). Aim of the study is to evaluate cardiorespiratory parameters during ADLs, cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) and sleep to highlight any difference related to protective masks. Method(s): 9 healthy subjects (age 59+/-11, 2 female) and 10 HF patients (age 64+/-11, 2 female, ejection fraction <45%, stable conditions) underwent a set of cardiopulmonary tests twice, wearing a protective surgical mask and without it. We performed the following tests: standard spirometry;CPET;a set of tests recorded by a wearable ergospirometer (Cosmed K5), including ADLs (ADL1: getting dressed, ADL2: folding eight towels, ADL3: putting away 6 bottles, ADL4: making a bed, ADL5: sweeping the floor for 4 minutes, ADL6: climbing 1 flight of stairs carrying a load), six-minute walking test (6MWT) and two 4-minute treadmill exercises (TREAD2 and TREAD3 at a speed of 2 km/h and 3 km/h, respectively);home polysomnography (HPS). Result(s): Both healthy subjects and HF patients completed the protocol with no adverse events. Spirometry showed a reduction of forced expiratory volume in 1s (3.29+/-0.75 L vs 2.65+/-0.57 L as for healthy subjects, p= 0.002;2.45+/-0.6 L vs 1.97 +/-0.54 L as for HF patients, p= 0.002) and forced vital capacity (4.14+/-0.92 L vs 3.39+/-0.83 L as for healthy subjects, p= 0.004;2.93+/-0.76 L vs 2.59+/-0.73 L as for HF patients, p= 0.01) in both the groups from no mask to mask. As for the CPET, both healthy and HF patients showed: a trend of reduction of peak oxygen pulse (p<0.005 in healthy) and peak oxygen consumption (VO2);a decrease of tidal volume (Vt) at peak exercise (peak Vt: 2.283+/-0.449 L vs 1.864+/-0.359 L in healthy, p= 0.022;1.6+/-0.41 L vs 1.448+/-0.431 L in HF, p= 0.02), with no significative variations of resting and peak ventilation (VE). HF patients experienced a statistically significative decrease of VO2 at the anaerobic threshold (AT) (794+/-227 vs 682 +/-151 mL min-1, p=0.01). No significant differences in the other CPET parameters were observed. As for tests recorded by a wearable cart, task-related VO2 was significantly reduced from no mask to mask in ALDs and 6MWT in the healthy, whereas HF patients experienced a significative reduction in ADL1, ADL4, 6MWTand TREADs (probably more physically demanding tasks). Both healthy and HF subjects showed an increase in the basal and task-related ratio of VE vs carbon dioxide production (VE/VCO2) between the two protocol conditions. No difference in the main HPS parameters were observed from no mask to mask. Conclusion(s): Surgical masks slightly influences cardiorespiratory variables in healthy and HF patients at rest and during both mild and maximal physical activity. The physiological impact of the mask is far from being clinically relevant and no main differences between the groups were noted, except for an early AT in patients with HF. Since no main limitations were observed, the use of masks seems to be safe both in the general population and in HF patients. Moreover, it does not have a significant impact on sleep neither in healthy subjects nor in patients with HF, these ones particularly at risk of sleep apneas. These data should be confirmed in a larger group of patients.
ABSTRACT
Background and Aim of the Study: During the last months, a pandemic by a novel coronavirus (Sars-Cov-2) has spread worldwide, putting hospitals under enormous pressure. Although follow-up data in this setting are scarce, early reports suggested that more than 80% of patients who had recovered from COronaVIrus Disease 19 (COVID-19) reported persistence of at least one symptom during follow-up, particularly fatigue and dyspnea. Therefore, a prolonged post-discharge monitoring for long-lasting effects is advisable. We assessed the feasibility of cardiorespiratory home monitoring through a wearable device in post-COVID-19 patients. Methods: in this pilot study, we enrolled subjects with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 after hospital discharge at home. A wearable device used (L.I.F.E.) (a technologically advanced T-Shirt device composed of ink-based dry electrodes linked to standard 12-lead ECG monitoring, 5 respiratory strain sensors, 1 accelerometer, a digital pulse oximeter) was used (Figure 1). Monitoring was carried out for at least 7 days and comprehended a two-hour monitoring period a day during rest and a short exercise (6 minutes of brisk walking) and an overnight sleep monitoring on the last day. Results: Seventeen COVID-19 patients (male 8;age 54.4±15.3 year old;BMI 25.1±3.1) were enrolled at hospital discharge. They underwent 12.5±2.5 (7-17) days of monitoring. Clinical characteristics of the population and data monitoring are shown in Figure 2. Twelve patients (70.6%) performed the nighttime monitoring. Among them, one showed an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of 20, suggestive of moderate sleep apnea syndrome. An example of ECG monitoring is shown in Figure 3. Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that a post-discharge home monitoring program for COVID-19 patients is feasible and safe. The L.I.F.E. T-Shirt device was able to collect a full set of cardiorespiratory parameters (i.e. heart rate, a full ECG, respiratory rate, SpO2), both at rest and during a brief exercise. Finally, we were able to identify only one patient without any previous disease who presented post-COVID sleep apnea syndrome. Further studies are certainly needed to assess the prevalence and the clinical impact of this complication in post-COVID-19 patients.
ABSTRACT
Background: During the current COVID-19 pandemic, the use of protective masks is essential to reduce contagions. However, public opinion reports an associated subjective shortness of breath. We aimed to evaluate cardiorespiratory parameters, both at rest and during maximal exertion, to highlight any differences with the use of surgical masks and FFP2 masks compared to standard conditions in healthy subjects. Methods: Twelve subjects underwent three consecutive cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPETs): without wearing protection mask, with surgical mask and with FFP2 mask (Figure 1). Subjects' degree of dyspnea was assessed by Borg Scale. Standard pulmonary function tests were performed at rest. Findings: All the subjects (40.8±12.4 years;6 male) completed the study protocol with no adverse event. At spirometry, from no mask to surgical to FFP2 a progressive reduction of FEV1 and FVC was observed (3.94±0.91L/s, 3.23±0.81L/s, 2.94±0.98L/ s and 4.70±1.21L, 3,77±1.02L, 3.52±1.21L, respectively, p<0.001) (Figure 2). Rest ventilation, O2 intake (VO2) and CO2 production (VCO2) were progressively lower due to a respiratory rate reduction. At peak exercise, subjects revealed a progressive higher Borg scale value when wearing surgical and FFP2 (Figure 3). At peak exercise VO2 (30.9±623.40, 27.50±6.92, 28.24±8.79ml/Kg/min, p=0.001), ventilation (92.29±25.99, 76.19±21.62, 71.63±21.19L, p=0.003), respiratory rate (41.52±8.02, 37.73±5.52, 37.11±4.53, p=0.04) and tidal volume (2.28±0.72, 2.05±0,60, 1.96±0.65L, p=0.001) were lower from no mask to surgical to FFP2. We did not observe a significant inter-group difference in oxygen sat-uration. Interpretation: Protective masks are associated with a significant but modest worsening spirometry and cardiorespiratory parameters at rest and peak exercise. The effect is driven by a ventilation reduction due to an increased air-flow resistance. However, since signs of exercise ventilatory limitation are far away to be reached, their use is safe even during maximal exercise, albeit with a slight reduction in performance.
ABSTRACT
Background and aim. In December 2019, in the city of Wuhan (China), a potential new causative agent of pneumonia, called the new coronavirus 2019 (nCoV-2019) was identified. Since then, the need to contain the global spread of the infection has become urgent through specific social distancing procedures and through the use of individual protection devices (i.e. airway protection masks). In the media doubts were raised about the impact of different types of masks on daily physical activity, in particular for those who perform physical exercise. In this context, we aimed to evaluate cardiorespiratory parameters, assessable through a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET), to highlight any differences with the use of surgical mask or filtering facepiece particles class 2 (FFP2) mask compared to the test performed under normal conditions. Methods. 12 healthy subjects, enrolled in July 2020, performed three consecutive CPETs at least 24 hours apart, but within 2 weeks, without wearing airway protection mask, with surgical mask and with FFP2 mask. The execution order of the CPETs was assigned in order to cover all possible combinations. During the CPETs, the consumption of Watts reached will be obscured to the subject. Before the start and immediately after the end of each CPET, maximum inspiratory pressure (MIP) and the maximum expiratory pressure (MEP) was also assessed. Results. Comparing the three conditions, we observed a progressive significant reduction in oxygen intake, carbon dioxide output, ventilation and respiratory rate at rest as well as at peak exercise (Table 1). The workload also decreased. We did not notice differences in blood oxygen saturation nor adverse events such as arrhythmias or ischemic events. MIP/MEP comparison did not reveal significant respiratory muscles fatigue. Discussion and Conclusions. The use of airway protection masks during pandemics (e.g. nCoV-2019) is a key safeguard to contain viral transmission. In healthy subjects it reduces, both at rest and during exercise, ventilation values (mainly due to reduction of respiratory rate) without detectable alteration of arterial saturation, heart rate, respiratory muscle fatigue and/or adverse events even during a maximum effort. Our speculative hypothesis is that the effect is likely to be related to the presence of a mechanical obstacle to ventilation. Our data show that the use of masks is still compatible with the execution of physical activity even if the maximum workload is slightly reduced. In conclusion airway protection masks (both surgical mask and FFP2) can be safely used in daily life despite a slight impact on ventilation and metabolic parameters.