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.

Aims: Exercise 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 (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 results: We 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. Conclusion: Exercise 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.

In terms of sacubitril/valsartan (S/V)-induced changes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) via three-dimensional (3D) transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and S/V effects based on HF aetiology, data are lacking. We prospectively enrolled 51 HFrEF patients (24 ischaemic, 27 non-ischaemic). At baseline and at 6-month follow-up (6MFU) after S/V treatment optimisation, we assessed the N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and cardiac remodelling by two-dimensional (2D) and 3DTTE. In non-ischaemic patients, 2D and 3DTTE showed an improvement in left ventricular (LV) size and biventricular function at 6MFU vs. baseline: 3D-LV end-diastolic volume (EDV) 103 ± 30 vs. 125 ± 32 mL/m² (p < 0.05), 3D-LV ejection fraction (EF) 40 ± 9 vs. 32 ± 5% (p < 0.05), right ventricular (RV) 3D-EF 48.4 ± 6.5 vs. 44.3 ± 7.5% (p < 0.05); only the 3D method detected RV size reduction: 3D-RVEDV 63 ± 27 vs. 71 ± 30 mL/m² (p < 0.05). In ischaemic patients, only 3DTTE showed biventricular size and LV function improvement: 3D-LVEDV 112 ± 29 vs. 121 ± 27 mL/m² (p < 0.05), 3D-LVEF 35 ± 6 vs. 32 ± 5% (p < 0.05), 3D-RVEDV 57 ± 11 vs. 63 ± 14 mL/m² (p < 0.05); RV function did not ameliorate. In both ischaemic and non-ischaemic patients, diastolic function and NT-proBNP significantly improved. In HFrEF patients treated with S/V, 3DTTE helps to ascertain subtle changes in heart chambers’ size and function, which have a major impact on HFrEF prognosis. S/V has significantly different effects on LV function in non-ischaemic vs. ischaemic patients.

Cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) is a valuable diagnostic tool with a specific application in heart failure (HF) thanks to the strong prognostic value of its parameters. The most important value provided by CPET is the peak oxygen uptake (peak VO₂), the maximum rate of oxygen consumption attainable during physical exertion. According to the Fick principle, VO₂ equals cardiac output (Q_c) times the arteriovenous content difference [C(a–v)O₂], where Ca is the arterial oxygen and Cv is the mixed venous oxygen content, respectively; therefore, VO₂ can be reduced both by impaired O₂ delivery (reduced Q_c) or extraction (reduced arteriovenous O₂ content). However, standard CPET is not capable of discriminating between these different impairments, leading to the need for ‘complex’ CPET technologies. Among non-invasive methods for Q_c measurement during CPET, inert gas rebreathing and thoracic impedance cardiography are the most used techniques, both validated in healthy subjects and patients with HF, at rest and during exercise. On the other hand, the non-invasive assessment of peripheral muscle perfusion is possible with the application of near-infrared spectroscopy, capable of measuring tissue oxygenation. Measuring Q_c allows, by having haemoglobin values available, to discriminate how much any VO₂ deficit depends on the muscle, anaemia or heart.

Purpose: Sacubitril/valsartan is a mainstay of the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); however, its effects on exercise performance yielded conflicting results. Aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on exercise parameters and echocardiographic and biomarker changes at different drug doses. Methods: We prospectively enrolled consecutive HFrEF outpatients eligible to start sacubitril/valsartan. Patients underwent clinical assessment, cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET), blood sampling, echocardiography, and completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-12). Sacubitril/valsartan was introduced at 24/26 mg b.i.d. dose and progressively uptitrated in a standard monthly-based fashion to 97/103 mg b.i.d. or maximum tolerated dose. Study procedures were repeated at each titration visit and 6 months after reaching the maximum tolerated dose. Results: Ninety-six patients completed the study, 73 (75%) reached maximum sacubitril/valsartan dose. We observed a significant improvement in functional capacity across all study steps: oxygen intake increased, at peak exercise (from 15.6 ± 4.5 to 16.5 ± 4.9 mL/min/kg; p trend = 0.001), while minute ventilation/carbon dioxide production relationship reduced in patients with an abnormal value at baseline. Sacubitril/valsartan induced positive left ventricle reverse remodeling (EF from 31 ± 5 to 37 ± 8%; p trend < 0.001), while NT-proBNP reduced from 1179 [610–2757] to 780 [372–1344] pg/ml (p trend < 0.0001). NYHA functional class and the subjective perception of limitation in daily life at KCCQ-12 significantly improved. The Metabolic Exercise Cardiac Kidney Index (MECKI) score progressively improved from 4.35 [2.42–7.71] to 2.35% [1.24–4.96], p = 0.003. Conclusions: A holistic and progressive HF improvement was observed with sacubitril/valsartan in parallel with quality of life. Likewise, a prognostic enhancement was observed.

In the last decades, the pharmacological treatment of heart failure (HF) become more complex due to the availability of new highly effective drugs. Although the cardiovascular effects of HF therapies have been extensively described, less known are their effects on cardiopulmonary function considered as a whole, both at rest and in response to exercise. This is a ‘holistic’ approach to disease treatment that can be accurately evaluated by a cardiopulmonary exercise test. The aim of this paper is to assess the main differences in the effects of different drugs [angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors, Angiotensin II receptor blockers, β-blockers, Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, renal sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, iron supplementation] on cardiopulmonary function in patients with HF, both at rest and during exercise, and to understand how these differences can be taken into account when choosing the most appropriate treatment protocol for each individual patient leading to a precision medicine approach.