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.

Background: Only a few studies have systematically evaluated fluoroscopy data of electrophysiological and device implantation procedures. Aims of this study were to quantify ionizing radiation exposure for electrophysiological/device implantation procedures in a large series of patients and to analyze the x‐ray exposure trend over years and radiation exposure in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation considering different technical aspects. Methods and Results: We performed a retrospective analysis of all electrophysiological/device implantation procedures performed during the past 7 years in a modern, large‐volume laboratory. We reported complete fluoroscopy data on 8150 electrophysiological/device implantation procedures (6095 electrophysiological and 2055 device implantation procedures); for each type of procedure, effective dose and lifetime attributable risk of cancer incidence and mortality were calculated. Over the 7‐year period, we observed a significant trend reduction in fluoroscopy time, dose area product, and effective dose for all electrophysiological procedures ( P <0.001) and a not statistically significant trend reduction for device implantation procedures. Analyzing 2416 atrial fibrillation ablations, we observed a significant variability of fluoroscopy time, dose area product and effective dose among 7 different experienced operators ( P <0.0001) and a significant reduction of fluoroscopy use over time ( P <0.0001) for all of them. Considering atrial fibrillation ablation techniques, fluoroscopy time was not different ( P = 0.74) for radiofrequency catheter ablation in comparison with cryoablation, though cryoablation was still associated with higher dose area product and effective dose values ( P <0.001). Conclusions: Electrophysiological procedures involve a nonnegligible x‐ray use, leading to an increased risk of malignancy. Awareness of radiation‐related risk, together with technological advances, can successfully optimize fluoroscopy use.

SUMMARY: Aim: To assess the effect of chronotropic incompetence on functional capacity in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients, as evaluated as NYHA and peak oxygen consumption (pVO₂), focusing on the presence and dose of β‐blocker treatment. Methods: Nine hundred and sixty‐seven consecutive CHF patients were evaluated, 328 of whom were discarded because they failed to meet the study criteria. Of the 639 analyzed, 90 were not treated with β‐blockers whereas the other 549 were. The latter were further subdivided in high (n = 184) and low (n = 365) β‐blockers daily dose group in accordance with an arbitrary cut‐off of 25 mg for carvedilol and of 5 mg for bisoprolol. Failure to achieve 80% of the percentage of maximum age predicted peak heart rate (%Max PHR) or of HR reserve (%HRR) constituted chronotropic incompetence. Results: No differences were found in NYHA or pVO2 between patients with and without β‐blockers and, similarly, between high and low β‐blocker dose groups. Twenty and sixty‐nine percent of not β‐blocked patients showed chronotropic incompetence according to %Max PHR and %HRR, respectively, whereas this prevalence rose to 61% and 84% in those on β‐blocker therapy. Patients taking β‐blockers without chronotropic incompetence, as inferable from both %Max PHR and %HRR, showed higher NYHA and pVO2 regardless of drug dose, whereas, in not β‐blocked patients, only %HRR revealed a difference in functional capacity. At multivariable analysis, HR increase during exercise (ΔHR) was the variable most strongly associated to pVO2 (β: 0.572; SE: 0.008; P < 0.0001) and NYHA class (β: −0.499; SE: 0.001; P < 0.0001). Conclusions: ΔHR is a powerful predictor of CHF severity regardless of the presence of β‐blocker therapy and of β‐blocker daily dose.