Search

(1) Background: Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) has been suggested by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) for assessing the exercise limitations of apparently healthy individuals, but data on elite athletes regarding this test are scarce. (2) Methods: We analyzed CPET in elite (n = 43, 21.9 ± 3.7 years) and recreational (n = 40, 34.7 ± 13.0 years) athletes with persistent subjective exercise intolerance and post-exertional malaise (PEM) after COVID-19 infection. The primary outcome was the point prevalence of the adequate cardiopulmonary response (ACPR), defined by the presence of all of the following ESC criteria for apparently healthy individuals: (1) >100% of predicted peak oxygen consumption (predVO2peak), (2) VE/VCO2 < 30, (3) no exercise oscillatory ventilation (EOV), and (4) heart rate recovery of ≥12 beats/minute 1 min after exercise termination (HRR1). Results: ACPR occurred more frequently in elite athletes than in recreational athletes (70.0% vs. 39.5%; p = 0.005), mainly driven by the lower VE/VCO2 (<30: 97.7% vs. 65%, p < 0.001). Elite (11.6%) and recreational athletes (22.5%) showing a plateau of O2 pulse did not display ACPR. Conclusions: ACPR was not observed in all recreational and elite athletes with PEM. In particular, perturbed VE/VCO2 and the plateauing of O2 pulse are suitable for quantifying exercise limitations and may identify a high-risk population with long-COVID-19 syndrome who require their training intensities to be adapted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(1) Background: The exercise capacity of patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) remains limited despite mechanical support. Higher dead space ventilation (VD/VT) may be a surrogate for right ventricular to pulmonary artery uncoupling (RV–PA) during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) to explain persistent exercise limitations. (2) Methods: We investigated 197 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction with (n = 89) and without (HFrEF, n = 108) LVAD. As a primary outcome NTproBNP, CPET, and echocardiographic variables were analyzed for their potential to discriminate between HFrEF and LVAD. As a secondary outcome CPET variables were evaluated for a composite of hospitalization due to worsening heart failure and overall mortality over 22 months. (3) Results: NTproBNP (OR 0.6315, 0.5037–0.7647) and RV function (OR 0.45, 0.34–0.56) discriminated between LVAD and HFrEF. The rise of endtidal CO2 (OR 4.25, 1.31–15.81) and VD/VT (OR 1.23, 1.10–1.40) were higher in LVAD patients. Group (OR 2.01, 1.07–3.85), VE/VCO2 (OR 1.04, 1.00–1.08), and ventilatory power (OR 0.74, 0.55–0.98) were best associated with rehospitalization and mortality. (4) Conclusions: LVAD patients displayed higher VD/VT compared to HFrEF. Higher VD/VT as a surrogate for RV–PA uncoupling could be another marker of persistent exercise limitations in LVAD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]