No abstract

The benefits of exercise in the prevention of cardiovascular disease are irrefutable. However, the optimum 'dose' of exercise in order to derive the maximum cardiovascular benefit is not certain. Current national and international guidelines advocate the benefits of moderate-intensity exercise. The relative benefits of vigorous versus moderate-intensity exercise have been studied in large epidemiological studies, addressing coronary heart disease and mortality, as well as smaller randomized clinical trials which assessed effects on cardiovascular risk factors. There is evidence that exercise intensity, rather than duration or frequency, is the most important variable in determining cardioprotection. Applying this evidence into practice must take into account the impact of baseline fitness, compliance and the independent risk associated with a sedentary lifestyle. This review aims to evaluate the role of exercise intensity in the reduction of cardiovascular risk, and answer the question: should you be advising your patients to walk or run?

The pathophysiology and trajectory of post-Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) syndrome is uncertain. To clarify multisystem involvement, we undertook a prospective cohort study including patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19 (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04403607). Serial blood biomarkers, digital electrocardiography and patient-reported outcome measures were obtained in-hospital and at 28–60 days post-discharge when multisystem imaging using chest computed tomography with pulmonary and coronary angiography and cardio-renal magnetic resonance imaging was also obtained. Longer-term clinical outcomes were assessed using electronic health records. Compared to controls (n = 29), at 28–60 days post-discharge, people with COVID-19 (n = 159; mean age, 55 years; 43% female) had persisting evidence of cardio-renal involvement and hemostasis pathway activation. The adjudicated likelihood of myocarditis was ‘very likely’ in 21 (13%) patients, ‘probable’ in 65 (41%) patients, ‘unlikely’ in 56 (35%) patients and ‘not present’ in 17 (11%) patients. At 28–60 days post-discharge, COVID-19 was associated with worse health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L score 0.77 (0.23) versus 0.87 (0.20)), anxiety and depression (PHQ-4 total score 3.59 (3.71) versus 1.28 (2.67)) and aerobic exercise capacity reflected by predicted maximal oxygen utilization (20.0 (7.6) versus 29.5 (8.0) ml/kg/min) (all P < 0.01). During follow-up (mean, 450 days), 24 (15%) patients and two (7%) controls died or were rehospitalized, and 108 (68%) patients and seven (26%) controls received outpatient secondary care (P = 0.017). The illness trajectory of patients after hospitalization with COVID-19 includes persisting multisystem abnormalities and health impairments that could lead to substantial demand on healthcare services in the future.

Background: The reported incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with nephrotic syndrome (NS) varies widely, as does the approach to prophylactic anticoagulation. We aimed to assess the incidence of VTE in patients with primary NS in order to inform a sample size calculation to determine if a future clinical trial will ever be feasible. Methods: All adults undergoing native renal biopsy for NS between 2008 and 2013 yielding a diagnosis of primary glomerulonephritis were identified. Baseline serum albumin, urine protein:creatinine ratio, estimated glomerular filtration rate, date of biopsy and histological diagnosis were recorded. Episodes of objectively verified VTE were identified using the electronic patient record. Sample size calculations were performed based on 2 independent samples with a dichotomous outcome and to achieve a power of 80% and p < 0.05. Results: Two hundred six patients were included of which 60% were male and mean age at biopsy was 55 years (SD 19). Median follow-up was 2.9 years (interquartile range (IQR) 1.6-4.7). Fourteen (6.8%) patients suffered VTE. Median time to diagnosis of VTE from renal biopsy was 36 days (IQR -22 to 178), with 6 VTEs occurring prior to biopsy and 1 during remission. In a total of 270 patient years of NS, there were 7 VTE that could potentially have been avoided if anticoagulation was given for the duration of NS, that is, 2.6% risk per year of NS; this risk was highest for patients with minimal change nephropathy at 13.3% per year of NS, compared to 0.65% per year of NS for those with idiopathic membranous nephropathy. Assuming a 75% reduction in the incidence of VTE with prophylactic anticoagulation, 972 participants would be required for a future clinical trial to have 80% power. Conclusions: Patients with primary NS are at an increased risk of VTE. The timing of VTE means that only half of episodes would be targeted by prophylactic anticoagulation. Given the low frequency of events, a well-powered clinical trial would be challenging to achieve.