The prognostic stratification of heart failure remains an urgent need for correct clinical management of the affected patients. In fact, due to the high mortality and morbidity rates, heart failure constantly requires an updated and careful management of all aspects that characterise the disease. In addition to the well-known clinical, laboratory and instrumental characteristics that affect the prognosis of heart failure, gender, age and body mass index have a different impact and deserve specific insights and clarifications. At this scope, the metabolic exercise cardiac kidney index score research group has produced several works in the past, trying to identify the role of these specific factors on the prognosis of heart failure. In particular, the different performances in the cardiopulmonary exercise test of specific categories of heart failure patients, such as women, elderly and obese or overweight individuals, have requested dedicated evaluations of metabolic exercise cardiac kidney index score power.

Metabolic syndrome (Mets) is a clinical condition characterized by a cluster of major risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type 2 diabetes: proatherogenic dyslipidemia, elevated blood pressure, dysglycemia, and abdominal obesity. Each risk factor has an independent effect, but, when aggregated, they become synergistic, doubling the risk of developing cardiovascular diseases and causing a 1.5-fold increase in all-cause mortality. We will highlight gender differences in the epidemiology, etiology, pathophysiology, and clinical expression of the aforementioned Mets components. Moreover, we will discuss gender differences in new biochemical markers of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular risk.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of protective masks has been essential to reduce contagions. However, public opinion is that there is an associated subjective shortness of breath. We evaluated cardiorespiratory parameters at rest and during maximal exertion to highlight any differences with the use of protective masks.12 healthy subjects performed three identical cardiopulmonary exercise tests, one without wearing a protective mask, one wearing a surgical mask and one with a filtering face piece particles class 2 (FFP2) mask. Dyspnoea was assessed using the Borg scale. Standard pulmonary function tests were also performed.All the subjects (40.8±12.4 years; six male) completed the protocol with no adverse events. Spirometry showed a progressive reduction of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) and forced vital capacity (FVC) from no mask to surgical to FFP2 (FEV₁: 3.94±0.91 L, 3.23±0.81 L, 2.94±0.98 L; FVC: 4.70±1.21 L, 3.77±1.02 L, 3.52±1.21 L; p<0.001). Rest ventilation, O₂uptake (V˙O₂) and CO₂production (V˙CO₂) were progressively lower, with a reduction in respiratory rate. At peak exercise, subjects had a progressively higher Borg scale when wearing surgical and FFP2 masks. Accordingly, at peak exercise,V˙O₂(31.0±23.4 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹, 27.5±6.9 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹, 28.2±8.8 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹; p=0.001), ventilation (92±26 L, 76±22 L, 72±21 L; p=0.003), respiratory rate (42±8 breaths·min⁻¹, 38±5 breaths·min⁻¹, 37±4 breaths·min⁻¹; p=0.04) and tidal volume (2.28±0.72 L, 2.05±0.60 L, 1.96±0.65 L; p=0.001) were gradually lower. There was no significant difference in oxygen saturation.Protective 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 increased airflow resistance. However, because exercise ventilatory limitation is far from being reached, their use is safe even during maximal exercise, with a slight reduction in performance.