ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound effect on all aspects of life, including physical fitness and well-being of the general population. In the present study, we assessed the effect of the pandemic on the subjective and objective fitness of high-level nonelite runners. METHODS: The MASTERS Athletic Study is an ongoing survey of training and health habits of high-level nonelite runners, the majority of whom compete in marathons and other extreme endurance events. We invited participants to a web-based questionnaire regarding training and fitness during the COVID-19 pandemic. Comparisons were made between subjective and objective fitness as well as well as the relationship of prepandemic training volume and history of COVID-19 on change in fitness during the pandemic, using Mann-Whitney rank-sum tests and chi-square tests for nonparametric and categorical variables, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 189 runners completed the survey, of whom 26 (13.8%) reported prior diagnosis with COVID-19. In terms of the subjective sense of fitness compared to before the pandemic, 49 (25.9%) reported they were less fit, 55 (29.1%) reported they were more fit, and 85 (45.0%) reported their fitness was unchanged. These assessments correlated well with objective measurement of training volume in MET-min/week. Runners with improved fitness at present had a lower calculated training volume before the pandemic versus those who reported unchanged or worsened fitness. There was no relationship between the report of prior COVID-19 and either subjective or objective measures of fitness. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a variable effect on the fitness of high-level nonelite runners. We found an inverse relationship between baseline training volume and the likelihood of runners reporting improved fitness and no relationship between a history of COVID-19 and change in fitness through the pandemic. Understanding the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on athletic fitness will help guide strategies to maintain physical health and wellness through future public health crises.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, cath labs have had to modify their workflow for elective and urgent patients. METHODS: We surveyed 16 physicians across 3 hospitals in our healthcare system to address COVID-19 related concerns in the management of interventional and structural heart disease patients, and to formulate system wide criteria for deferring cases till after the pandemic. RESULTS: Our survey yielded common concerns centered on the need to protect patients, cath lab staff and physicians from unnecessary exposure to COVID-19; for COVID-19 testing prior to arrival to the cath lab; for clear communication between the referring physician and the interventionalist; but there was initial uncertainty among physicians regarding the optimal management of ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI; percutaneous coronary intervention versus thrombolytics). Patients with stable angina and hemodynamically stable acute coronary syndromes were deemed suitable for initial medical management, except when they had large ischemic burden. Most transcatheter aortic valve implantations (TAVI) were felt appropriate for postponement except in symptomatic patients with aortic valve area <0.5 cm2 or recent hospitalization for heart failure (HF). Most percutaneous mitral valve repair (pMVR) procedures were felt appropriate for postponement except in patients with HF. All left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) and patent foramen ovale (PFO)/atrial septal defect (ASD) closure procedures were felt appropriate for postponement. CONCLUSION: Our survey of an experienced team of clinicians yielded concise guidelines to direct the management of CAD and structural heart disease patients during the initial phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.