BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of protection masks is essential to reduce contagions. However, public opinion reports an associated subjective shortness of breath. We evaluated cardiorespiratory parameters at rest and during maximal exertion to highlight any differences with the use of protection masks.MethodsTwelve healthy subjects underwent three cardiopulmonary exercise tests: without wearing protection mask, with surgical and with FFP2 mask. Dyspnea was assessed by Borg Scale. Standard pulmonary function tests were also performed.ResultsAll the subjects (40.8±12.4 years; 6 males) completed the protocol with no adverse event. At spirometry, from no mask to surgical to FFP2, a progressive reduction of FEV1 and FVC was observed (3.94±0.91 l, 3.23±0.81 l, 2.94±0.98 l and 4.70±1.21 l, 3.77±1.02 l, 3.52±1.21 l, respectively, p<0.001). Rest ventilation, O2 uptake (V̇O2) and CO2 production (VCO2) were progressively lower with a reduction of respiratory rate. At peak exercise, subjects revealed a progressively higher Borg scale when wearing surgical and FFP2. Accordingly, at peak exercise, V̇O2 (31.0±23.4, 27.5±6.9, 28.2±8.8 ml/kg/min, p=0.001), ventilation (92±26, 76±22, 72±21 l, p=0.003), respiratory rate (42±8, 38±5, 37±4, p=0.04) and tidal volume (2.28±0.72, 2.05±0.60, 1.96±0.65 l, p=0.001) were gradually lower. We did not observed a significant difference in oxygen saturation.ConclusionsProtection masks are associated with significant but modest worsening of spirometry and cardiorespiratory parameters at rest and peak exercise. The effect is driven by a ventilation reduction due to an increased airflow resistance. However, since exercise ventilatory limitation is far from being reached, their use is safe even during maximal exercise, with a slight reduction in performance.

Aims We assessed the outcome of hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) patients with heart failure (HF) compared with patients with other cardiovascular disease and/or risk factors (arterial hypertension, diabetes, or dyslipidaemia). We further wanted to determine the incidence of HF events and its consequences in these patient populations. Methods and results International retrospective Postgraduate Course in Heart Failure registry for patients hospitalized with COVID‐19 and CArdioVascular disease and/or risk factors (arterial hypertension, diabetes, or dyslipidaemia) was performed in 28 centres from 15 countries (PCHF‐COVICAV). The primary endpoint was in‐hospital mortality. Of 1974 patients hospitalized with COVID‐19, 1282 had cardiovascular disease and/or risk factors (median age: 72 [interquartile range: 62–81] years, 58% male), with HF being present in 256 [20%] patients. Overall in‐hospital mortality was 25% ( n = 323/1282 deaths). In‐hospital mortality was higher in patients with a history of HF (36%, n = 92) compared with non‐HF patients (23%, n = 231, odds ratio [OR] 1.93 [95% confidence interval: 1.44–2.59], P < 0.001). After adjusting, HF remained associated with in‐hospital mortality (OR 1.45 [95% confidence interval: 1.01–2.06], P = 0.041). Importantly, 186 of 1282 [15%] patients had an acute HF event during hospitalization (76 [40%] with de novo HF), which was associated with higher in‐hospital mortality (89 [48%] vs. 220 [23%]) than in patients without HF event (OR 3.10 [2.24–4.29], P < 0.001). Conclusions Hospitalized COVID‐19 patients with HF are at increased risk for in‐hospital death. In‐hospital worsening of HF or acute HF de novo are common and associated with a further increase in in‐hospital mortality.

AimsExercise oscillatory ventilation (EOV) is a pivotal cardiopulmonary exercise test parameter for the prognostic evaluation of patients with chronic heart failure (HF). It has been described in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (<40%, HFrEF) and with HF with preserved ejection fraction (>50%, HFpEF), but no data are available for patients with HF with mid‐range ejection fraction (40–49%, HFmrEF). The aim of the study was to evaluate the prognostic role of EOV in HFmrEF patients.Methods and resultsWe analysed 1239 patients with HFmrEF and 4482 patients with HFrEF, enrolled in the MECKI score database, with a 2‐year follow‐up. The study endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death, urgent heart transplant, and ventricular assist device implantation. We identified EOV in 968 cases (16% and 17% of cases in HFmrEF and HFrEF,respectively). HFrEF EOV+ patients were significantly older, and their parameters suggested a more severe HF than HFrEF EOV− patients. A similar behaviour was found in HFmrEF EOV+ vs. EOV− patients. Kaplan–Meier analysis, irrespective of ejection fraction, showed that EOV is associated with a worse survival, and that patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF EOV+ had a significantly worse outcome than the EOV− of the same ejection fraction groups. EOV‐associated survival differences in HFmrEF patients started after 18 months of follow‐up.ConclusionExercise oscillatory ventilation has a similar prevalence and ominous prognostic value in both HFmrEF and HFrEF patients, indicating a group of patients in need of a more intensive follow‐up and a more aggressive therapy. In HFmrEF, the survival curves between EOV+ and EOV− patients diverged only after 18 months.

Aims Practice guidelines recommend sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. The aim of our study was to describe the use of sacubitril/valsartan in real-world clinical practice to help identify patients best able to tolerate titration to higher doses. Methods We retrospectively analyzed clinical data for 201 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction prescribed sacubitril/valsartan at our heart failure clinic (Centro Cardiologico Monzino) between September 2016/December 2018. Patients had a mean age of 67.2 years, mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 30.1%, New York Heart Association class II (65%), class III (35%), and poor cardiopulmonary exercise capacity. Median 2-year risk of death/urgent cardiac transplantation was 8.9% [Metabolic Exercise Cardiac Kidney Index (MECKI) score]. Results After a median follow-up of 230 (interquartile interval: 105–366) days, 57 patients achieved higher-dose sacubitril/valsartan, 103 tolerated medium/low doses, nine died, and 20 interrupted treatment. The highest dose of sacubitril/valsartan was reached by younger patients with better hemoglobin (Hb) levels, renal function, and blood pressure (BP). Patients continuing on sacubitril/valsartan had significantly higher serum Hb and sodium, better BP, and lower MECKI scores than patients who discontinued treatment or died during follow-up. Our patients were older and frailer than those in the pivotal PARADIGM-HF trial. Conclusion In our experience, more than one-third of the patients were able to tolerate the higher dose of sacubitril/valsartan, and these patients were younger, had higher Hb, and better BP and renal function. MECKI score stratification was useful to discriminate patients who continued treatment from those who did not. Future prospective studies should test if these clinical variables can guide the up-titration of sacubitril/valsartan.

Aims Cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) and 6 min walking test (6MWT) are frequently used in heart failure (HF). CPET is a maximal exercise, whereas 6MWT is a self-selected constant load test usually considered a submaximal, and therefore safer, exercise, but this has not been tested previously. The aim of this study was to compare the cardiorespiratory parameters collected during CPET and 6MWT in a large group of healthy subjects and patients with HF of different severity. Methods and resultsSubjects performed a standard maximal CPET and a 6MWT wearing a portable device allowing breath-by-breath measurement of cardiorespiratory parameters. HF patients were grouped according to their CPET peak oxygen uptake (peakV ˙O2 ). One hundred and fifty-five subjects were enrolled, of whom 40 were healthy (59 ± 8 years; male 67%) and 115 were HF patients (69 ± 10 years; male 80%; left ventricular ejection fraction 34.6 ± 12.0%). CPET peakV ˙O2 was 13.5 ± 3.5 mL/kg/min in HF patients and 28.1 ± 7.4 mL/kg/min in healthy subjects (P < 0.001). 6MWT-V ˙O2 was 98 ± 20% of the CPET peakV ˙O2 values in HF patients, while 72 ± 20% in healthy subjects (P < 0.001). 6MWT-V ˙O2 was >110% of CPET peakV ˙O2 in 42% of more severe HF patients (peakV ˙O2 < 12 mL/kg/min). Similar results have been found for ventilation and heart rate. Of note, the slope of the relationship between V ˙O2 at 6MWT, reported as a percentage of CPET peakV ˙O2 vs. 6MWT V ˙O2 reported as the absolute value, progressively increased as exercise limitation did. Conclusions In conclusion, the last minute of 6MWT must be perceived as a maximal or even supramaximal exercise activity in patients with more severe HF. Our findings should influence the safety procedures needed for the 6MWT in HF.