Massimo Mapelli 1,2,3 , Elisabetta Salvioni 1,3 , Fabiana De Martino 1 , Irene Mattavelli 1 , Paola Gugliandolo 1 , Carlo Vignati 1,2 , Stefania Farina 1 , Pietro Palermo 1 , Jeness Campodonico 1 , Riccardo Maragna 1,2 , Gerardo Lo Russo 1,2 , Alice Bonomi 1 , Susanna Sciomer 4 , Piergiuseppe Agostoni 5,2 Show Affiliations »
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During 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. METHODS: Twelve 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. RESULTS: All 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. CONCLUSIONS: Protection 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. ©The authors 2021. For reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions@ersnet.org.
BACKGROUND: During 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. METHODS: Twelve 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. RESULTS: All 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. CONCLUSIONS: Protection 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. ©The authors 2021. For reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions@ersnet.org.
Entities: Chemical
Disease
Year: 2021
PMID： 33678608 DOI： 10.1183/13993003.04473-2020
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Respir J ISSN： 0903-1936 Impact factor: 16.671