Chiara Gattoni, Asghar Abbasi, Carrie Ferguson, Charles W. Lanks, Thomas W. Decato, Harry B. Rossiter, Richard Casaburi, William W. Stringer
{"title":"长 COVID 运动后瘫痪诊断中的两天心肺运动测试","authors":"Chiara Gattoni, Asghar Abbasi, Carrie Ferguson, Charles W. Lanks, Thomas W. Decato, Harry B. Rossiter, Richard Casaburi, William W. Stringer","doi":"10.1016/j.resp.2024.104362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Long COVID patients present with a myriad of symptoms that can include fatigue, exercise intolerance and post exertional malaise (PEM). Long COVID has been compared to other post viral syndromes, including myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), where a reduction in day 2 cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) performance of a two-day CPET protocol is suggested to be a result of PEM. We investigated cardiopulmonary and perceptual responses to a two-day CPET protocol in Long COVID patients.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>15 Long COVID patients [n=7 females; mean (SD) age: 53(11) yr; BMI = 32.2(8.5) kg/m<sup>2</sup>] performed a pulmonary function test and two ramp-incremental CPETs separated by 24 hr. CPET variables included gas exchange threshold (GET), peak oxygen uptake (<span><math><mrow><mover><mrow><mi>V</mi></mrow><mrow><mo>̇</mo></mrow></mover></mrow></math></span>O<sub>2peak</sub>) and peak work rate (W<em>R</em><sub>peak</sub>). Ratings of perceived dyspnoea and leg effort were recorded at peak exercise using the modified 0–10 Borg Scale. PEM (past six months) was assessed using the modified DePaul Symptom Questionnaire (mDSQ). One-sample <em>t</em>-tests were used to test significance of mean difference between days (p<0.05).</div></div><div><h3>Results.</h3><div>mDSQ revealed PEM in 80 % of patients. Lung function was normal. Responses to day 1 CPET were consistent with the presence of aerobic deconditioning in 40 % of patients (<span><math><mrow><mover><mrow><mi>V</mi></mrow><mrow><mo>̇</mo></mrow></mover></mrow></math></span>O<sub>2peak</sub> <80 % predicted, in the absence of evidence of cardiovascular and pulmonary limitations). There were no differences between day-1 and day-2 CPET responses (all p>0.05).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>PEM symptoms in Long COVID patients, in the absence of differences in two-day CPET responses separated by 24 hours, suggests that PEM is not due to impaired recovery of exercise capacity between days.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":20961,"journal":{"name":"Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology","volume":"331 ","pages":"Article 104362"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Two-day cardiopulmonary exercise testing in long COVID post-exertional malaise diagnosis\",\"authors\":\"Chiara Gattoni, Asghar Abbasi, Carrie Ferguson, Charles W. Lanks, Thomas W. Decato, Harry B. Rossiter, Richard Casaburi, William W. Stringer\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.resp.2024.104362\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Long COVID patients present with a myriad of symptoms that can include fatigue, exercise intolerance and post exertional malaise (PEM). Long COVID has been compared to other post viral syndromes, including myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), where a reduction in day 2 cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) performance of a two-day CPET protocol is suggested to be a result of PEM. We investigated cardiopulmonary and perceptual responses to a two-day CPET protocol in Long COVID patients.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>15 Long COVID patients [n=7 females; mean (SD) age: 53(11) yr; BMI = 32.2(8.5) kg/m<sup>2</sup>] performed a pulmonary function test and two ramp-incremental CPETs separated by 24 hr. CPET variables included gas exchange threshold (GET), peak oxygen uptake (<span><math><mrow><mover><mrow><mi>V</mi></mrow><mrow><mo>̇</mo></mrow></mover></mrow></math></span>O<sub>2peak</sub>) and peak work rate (W<em>R</em><sub>peak</sub>). Ratings of perceived dyspnoea and leg effort were recorded at peak exercise using the modified 0–10 Borg Scale. PEM (past six months) was assessed using the modified DePaul Symptom Questionnaire (mDSQ). One-sample <em>t</em>-tests were used to test significance of mean difference between days (p<0.05).</div></div><div><h3>Results.</h3><div>mDSQ revealed PEM in 80 % of patients. Lung function was normal. Responses to day 1 CPET were consistent with the presence of aerobic deconditioning in 40 % of patients (<span><math><mrow><mover><mrow><mi>V</mi></mrow><mrow><mo>̇</mo></mrow></mover></mrow></math></span>O<sub>2peak</sub> <80 % predicted, in the absence of evidence of cardiovascular and pulmonary limitations). There were no differences between day-1 and day-2 CPET responses (all p>0.05).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>PEM symptoms in Long COVID patients, in the absence of differences in two-day CPET responses separated by 24 hours, suggests that PEM is not due to impaired recovery of exercise capacity between days.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20961,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology\",\"volume\":\"331 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104362\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1569904824001551\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHYSIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1569904824001551","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Two-day cardiopulmonary exercise testing in long COVID post-exertional malaise diagnosis
Background
Long COVID patients present with a myriad of symptoms that can include fatigue, exercise intolerance and post exertional malaise (PEM). Long COVID has been compared to other post viral syndromes, including myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), where a reduction in day 2 cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) performance of a two-day CPET protocol is suggested to be a result of PEM. We investigated cardiopulmonary and perceptual responses to a two-day CPET protocol in Long COVID patients.
Methods
15 Long COVID patients [n=7 females; mean (SD) age: 53(11) yr; BMI = 32.2(8.5) kg/m2] performed a pulmonary function test and two ramp-incremental CPETs separated by 24 hr. CPET variables included gas exchange threshold (GET), peak oxygen uptake (O2peak) and peak work rate (WRpeak). Ratings of perceived dyspnoea and leg effort were recorded at peak exercise using the modified 0–10 Borg Scale. PEM (past six months) was assessed using the modified DePaul Symptom Questionnaire (mDSQ). One-sample t-tests were used to test significance of mean difference between days (p<0.05).
Results.
mDSQ revealed PEM in 80 % of patients. Lung function was normal. Responses to day 1 CPET were consistent with the presence of aerobic deconditioning in 40 % of patients (O2peak <80 % predicted, in the absence of evidence of cardiovascular and pulmonary limitations). There were no differences between day-1 and day-2 CPET responses (all p>0.05).
Conclusion
PEM symptoms in Long COVID patients, in the absence of differences in two-day CPET responses separated by 24 hours, suggests that PEM is not due to impaired recovery of exercise capacity between days.
期刊介绍:
Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology (RESPNB) publishes original articles and invited reviews concerning physiology and pathophysiology of respiration in its broadest sense.
Although a special focus is on topics in neurobiology, high quality papers in respiratory molecular and cellular biology are also welcome, as are high-quality papers in traditional areas, such as:
-Mechanics of breathing-
Gas exchange and acid-base balance-
Respiration at rest and exercise-
Respiration in unusual conditions, like high or low pressure or changes of temperature, low ambient oxygen-
Embryonic and adult respiration-
Comparative respiratory physiology.
Papers on clinical aspects, original methods, as well as theoretical papers are also considered as long as they foster the understanding of respiratory physiology and pathophysiology.