Does wearing a facemask decrease arterial blood oxygenation and impair exercise tolerance?

INTRODUCTION: Concerns have been raised that COVID-19 face coverings compromise lung function and pulmonary gas exchange to the extent that they produce arterial hypoxemia and hypercapnia during high intensity exercise resulting in exercise intolerance in recreational exercisers. This study therefore aimed to investigate the effects of a surgical, flannel or vertical-fold N95 masks on cardiorespiratory responses to incremental exercise. METHODS: This investigation studied 11 adult males and females at rest and while performing progressive cycle exercise to exhaustion. We tested the hypotheses that wearing a surgical (S), flannel (F) or horizontal-fold N95 mask compared to no mask (control) would not promote arterial deoxygenation or exercise intolerance nor alter primary cardiovascular variables during submaximal or maximal exercise. RESULTS: Despite the masks significantly increasing end-expired peri-oral %CO2 and reducing %O2, each ∼0.8-2% during exercise (P < 0.05), our results supported the hypotheses. Specifically, none of these masks reduced sub-maximal or maximal exercise arterial O2 saturation (P = 0.744), but ratings of dyspnea were significantly increased (P = 0.007). Moreover, maximal exercise capacity was not compromised nor were there any significant alterations of primary cardiovascular responses (mean arterial pressure, stroke volume, cardiac output) found during sub-maximal exercise. CONCLUSION: Whereas these results are for young healthy recreational male and female exercisers and cannot be applied directly to elite athletes, older or patient populations, they do support that arterial hypoxemia and exercise intolerance are not the obligatory consequences of COVID-19-indicated mask-wearing at least for cycling exercise.

A scoping review of surgical masks and N95 filtering facepiece respirators: Learning from the past to guide the future of dentistry.

With the 2019 emergence of coronavirus disease 19 (colloquially called COVID-19) came renewed public concern about airborne and aerosolized virus transmission. Accompanying this concern were many conflicting dialogues about which forms of personal protective equipment best protect dental health care practitioners and their patients from viral exposure. In this comprehensive review we provide a thorough and critical assessment of face masks and face shields, some of the most frequently recommended personal safeguards against viral infection. We begin by describing the function and practicality of the most common mask types used in dentistry: procedural masks, surgical masks, and filtering respirator facemasks (also called N95s). This is followed by a critical assessment of mask use based on a review of published evidence in three key domains: the degree to which each mask type is shown to protect against airborne and aerosolized disease, the reported likelihood for non-compliance among mask users, and risk factors associated with both proper and improper mask use. We use this information to conclude our review with several practical, evidence-based recommendations for mask use in dental and dental educational clinics.