It has become increasingly evident that COVID-19 contributes to multiorgan pathophysiology. The systemic inflammatory response increases both pro-inflammatory cytokine and chemokine levels, leading...

While the majority of individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) recover completely, a significant percentage experience persistent symptom, which has been characterized as Long COVID and may be associated with cardiac and autonomic dysfunction. We evaluated heart rate variability (HRV) at rest and during deep-breathing (M-RSA) in patients with Long COVID. Case–control design involved 21 patients with Long COVID and 20 controls; the HRV was evaluated (POLAR system) at rest in the supine position and during M-RSA and expressed in time domain and non-linear analysis. In the supine position we found a reduction HRV measures in Long COVID’ patients compared to controls for: Mean_iRR (p < 0.001), STD_iRR (p < 0.001); STD_HR (p < 0.001); SD1 (p < 0.001); SD2 (p < 0.001); alpha2 (p < 0.001). In the M-RSA we found reduction Mean_iRR (p < 0.001), STD_iRR (p < 0.001), STD_HR (p < 0.001), rMSSD (p < 0.001), RR_tri-index (p < 0.001) in Long COVID’ patients except for highest Mean_HR p < 0.001. In conclusion, Long COVID reduced HRV at rest and during deep breathing. These findings may imply impairment of cardiac autonomic control when symptoms of COVID-19 persist following initial recovery.

Introduction: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is recognized as a multisystemic inflammatory disease associated with extrapulmonary comorbidities, including respiratory muscle weakness and cardiovascular and cardiac autonomic regulation disorders. We investigated whether alterations in respiratory muscle strength (RMS) would affect cardiac autonomic modulation in COPD patients. Methods: This study was a cross-sectional study done in ten COPD patients affected by moderate to very severe disease. The heart rate variability (HRV) signal was recorded using a Polar cardiofrequencimeter at rest in the sitting position (10 minutes) and during a respiratory sinus arrhythmia maneuver (RSA-M; 4 minutes). Linear analysis in the time and frequency domains and nonlinear analysis were performed on the recorded signals. RMS was assessed using a digital manometer, which provided the maximum inspiratory pressure (Pimax) and the maximum expiratory pressure (Pemax). Results: During the RSA-M, patients presented an HRV power increase in the low-frequency band (LFnu) (46.9±23.7 vs 75.8±27.2; P=0.01) and a decrease in the high-frequency band (HFnu) (52.8±23.5 vs 24.0±27.0; P=0.01) when compared to the resting condition. Significant associations were found between RMS and HRV spectral indices: Pimax and LFnu (r=-0.74; P=0.01); Pimax and HFnu (r=0.74; P=0.01); Pemax and LFnu (r=-0.66; P=0.01); Pemax and HFnu (r=0.66; P=0.03); between Pemax and sample entropy (r=0.83; P<0.01) and between Pemax and approximate entropy (r=0.74; P=0.01). Using a linear regression model, we found that Pimax explained 44% of LFnu behavior during the RSA-M. Conclusion: COPD patients with impaired RMS presented altered cardiac autonomic control, characterized by marked sympathetic modulation and a reduced parasympathetic response; reduced HRV complexity was observed during the RSA-M.

Exercise intolerance is the hallmark consequence of advanced chronic heart failure (HF). The six-minute step test (6MST) has been considered an option for the six-minute walk test because it is safe, inexpensive, and can be applied in small places. However, its reliability and concurrent validity has still not been investigated in participants with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Clinically stable HFrEF participants were included. Reliability and error measurement were calculated by comparing the first with the second 6MST result. Forty-eight hours after participants underwent the 6MST, they were invited to perform a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) on a cycle ergometer. Concurrent validity was assessed by correlation between number of steps and peak oxygen uptake (V̇O2 peak) at CPET. Twenty-seven participants with HFrEF (60±8 years old and left ventricle ejection fraction of 41±6%) undertook a mean of 94±30 steps in the 6MST. Intra-rater reliability was excellent for 6MST (ICC=0.9), with mean error of 4.85 steps and superior and inferior limits of agreement of 30.6 and -20.9 steps, respectively. In addition, strong correlations between number of steps and CPET workload (r=0.76, P<0.01) and peak V̇O2 (r=0.71, P<0.01) were observed. From simple linear regression the following predictive equations were obtained with 6MST results: V̇O2 peak (mL/min) = 350.22 + (7.333 × number of steps), with R2=0.51, and peak workload (W) = 4.044 + (0.772 × number of steps), with R2=0.58. The 6MST was a reliable and valid tool to assess functional capacity in HFrEF participants and may moderately predict peak workload and oxygen uptake of a CPET.

Our aim was to identify optimal cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) threshold values that distinguish disease severity progression in patients with co-existing systolic heart failure (HF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and to evaluate the impact of the cut-off determined on the prognosis of hospitalizations. We evaluated 40 patients (30 men and 10 woman) with HF and COPD through pulmonary function testing, doppler echocardiography and maximal incremental CPET on a cycle ergometer. Several significant CPET threshold values were identified in detecting a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) < 1.6 L: 1) oxygen uptake efficiency slope (OUES) < 1.3; and 2) circulatory power (CP) < 2383 mmHg.mlO₂.kg⁻¹. CPET significant threshold values in identifying a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 39% were: 1) OUES: < 1.3; 2) CP < 2116 mmHg.mlO₂.kg⁻¹.min⁻¹ and minute ventilation/carbon dioxide production (V̇_E/V̇CO₂) slope>38. The 15 (38%) patients hospitalized during follow-up (8 ± 2 months). In the hospitalizations analysis, LVEF < 39% and FEV₁ < 1.6, OUES < 1.3, CP < 2116 mmHg.mlO₂.kg⁻¹.min⁻¹ and V̇_E/V̇CO₂ > 38 were a strong risk predictor for hospitalization (P ≤ 0.050). The CPET response effectively identified worsening disease severity in patients with a HF-COPD phenotype. LVEF, FEV_1, CP, OUES, and the V̇_E/V̇CO₂ slope may be particularly useful in the clinical assessment and strong risk predictor for hospitalization.