[Assessment of the effect of the COVID-19 health crisis on the aerobic capacities of healthy patients]. / Mesure de l'effet de la crise sanitaire COVID-19 sur les capacités aérobies de patients sains.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To measure the impact of the health crisis related to SARS-CoV-2 on the aerobic capacities of healthy patients based on the measurement of VO2 max and VO2 at the first ventilatory threshold (AT). To measure the impact of the introduction of the antibacterial filter on the ventilatory parameter measuring device. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on a multicentre (Angers and Cholet), observational and retrospective study, we want to analyze the effect of containment measures and the cessation of sports competitions on the measurement of VO2 max in healthy patients. For each patient, will be collected the gross value of the max VO2 and indexed to the weight of the patient, as well as its percentage with respect to the expected theoretical value, the value of the VO2 at the aerobic threshold indexed to the wieght of the patient and the usual cardiorespiratory parameters (HR max, RR max, VE max, RER max). Two samples will be analyzed patients with only one EFX ("unpaired" sample) and patients with multiple successive EFX over three years ("matched" sample). The impact of the antibacterial filter, used in one of the Sports Medicine departments, will be studied as a secondary issue. Statistical analyses were performed with the IBM SPSS 26 software. For all statistical tests, a p value of 0.05 was used in bilateral testing as the significance criterion. RESULTS: There is a significant difference in the value of VO2 max and AT in both the "unpaired" (VO2 max 36.72 vs 35.08 mL/kg/min, p = 0.014 - AT 21.03 vs 19.25 mL/kg/min, p < 0.001) and "matched" groups (VO2 max 2.76 vs 2.64 L/min, p = 0.037 - AT 1.55 vs 1.38 L/min, p = 0.001), more pronounced in patients over 60 years of age. The impact of the antibacterial filter does not show any particular impact within the "independent" sample. Within the "matched" sample, the significant age difference is not conclusive, but the exclusion of patients over the age of 60 makes the results meaningless.