ABSTRACT
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of face masks has demonstrated to be an effective strategy to prevent transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Wearing face masks, mainly Filtering Face Piece 2 (FFP2) masks, during exercise practice has demonstrated to affect several physiological measures. BACKGROUND: This study was aimed at assessing the intraocular pressure (IOP) behaviour during the execution of the dynamic and isometric biceps-curl exercise with a surgical and FFP2 face mask. METHODS: Twenty two physically active young adults performed sets of 10 repetitions against the 10-RM (repetition maximum) load and 1-minute isometric effort against a load 15% lower than the 10-RM load with the FFP2 and surgical mask and without any mask. A total of six exercise sets (3 experimental conditions [FFP2, surgical and control] × 2 exercise modalities) were performed. A rebound tonometer was used to measure IOP before, during (10 measurements), and after (30-seconds of passive recovery) each training set. RESULTS: At rest, there were not statistically significant IOP differences (p = 0.222). During dynamic exercise, there was a progressive IOP rise (p < 0.001), and a higher IOP response with the FFP2 than without the mask (corrected p-value = 0.003). For the isometric exercise, there was a greater IOP response as a function of accumulated effort (p < 0.001), which was dependent of the face mask used (FFP2> surgical>control; corrected p-values< 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The FFP2 masks cause a heightened IOP response during the execution of dynamic and isometric biceps-curl exercise, suggesting that, when possible, glaucoma patients should limit the use of FFP2 masks during resistance training.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The use of face mask is globally recommended as a preventive measure against COVID-19. However, the intraocular pressure (IOP) changes caused by face masks remain unknown. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of wearing surgical and FFP2/N95 face masks during a 400-m walking protocol on IOP in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients. METHODS: Thirteen subjects diagnosed of POAG (21 eyes) were enrolled in this study. IOP was measured at baseline, during the 400-m walking protocol and after 5 min of passive recovery while POAG patients wore a surgical mask, FFP2/N95 mask and no mask in randomized order. From the 21 POAG eyes, we analyzed the IOP changes caused by physical exercise with two face masks and without wearing any face mask. RESULTS: At rest (baseline and recovery measurements), the use of the different face masks did not affect IOP levels (mean differences ranging from 0.1 to 0.6 mmHg). During physical activity, wearing an FFP2/N95 mask caused a small (mean differences ranging from 1 to 2 mmHg), but statistically significant, IOP rise in comparison to both the surgical mask and control conditions (Cohen's d = 0.63 and 0.83, respectively). CONCLUSION: Face masks must be used to minimize the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and POAG patients can safely use FFP2/N95 and surgical masks at rest. However, due to the IOP rise observed while walking with the FFP2/N95 mask, when possible, POAG patients should prioritized the use of surgical masks during physical activity.