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.

No abstract

Background: Cardiopulmonary exercise test and 6-minute walking test are frequently used tools to evaluate physical performance in heart failure (HF), but they do neither represent activities of daily living (ADLs) nor fully reproduce patients’ symptoms. We assessed differences in task oxygen uptake, both as absolute value and as percentage of peak oxygen consumption (peakVO 2 ), ventilation efficiency (VE/VCO 2 ratio), and dyspnea intensity (Borg scale) in HF and healthy subjects during standard ADLs and other common physical actions. Methods: Healthy and HF subjects (ejection fraction <45%, stable conditions) underwent cardiopulmonary exercise test. All of them, carrying a wearable metabolic cart, performed a 6-minute walking test, two 4-minute treadmill exercises (at 2 and 3 km/h), and ADLs: ADL1 (getting dressed), ADL2 (folding 8 towels), ADL3 (putting away 6 bottles), ADL4 (making a bed), ADL5 (sweeping the floor for 4 minutes), ADL6 (climbing 1 flight of stairs carrying a load). Results: Sixty patients with HF (age 65.2±12.1 years; ejection fraction 30.4±6.7%, peakVO 2 14.2±4.0 mL/[min·kg]) and 40 healthy volunteers (58.9±8.2 years, peakVO 2 28.1±7.4 mL/[min·kg]) were enrolled. For each exercise, patients showed higher VE/VCO 2 ratio, percentage of peakVO 2 , and Borg scale value than controls, while absolute values of task oxygen uptake and exercise duration were lower and higher, respectively, in all activities, except for treadmill (fixed execution time and intensity). Differently from Borg Scale data, metabolic values and exercise time length changed in parallel with HF severity, except for ADL duration in very short (ADL3) and composite (ADL1) activities. Borg scale values correlated with percentage of peakVO 2 . Conclusions: During ADLs, patients self-regulated activities in parallel with HF severity by decreasing intensity (VO 2 ) and prolonging the effort.

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.

No abstract