The long-term pulmonary outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are unknown. We aimed to describe self-reported dyspnoea, quality of life, pulmonary function, and chest CT findings three months following hospital admission for COVID-19. We hypothesised outcomes to be inferior for patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU), compared with non-ICU patients.Discharged COVID-19-patients from six Norwegian hospitals were consecutively enrolled in a prospective cohort study. The current report describes the first 103 participants, including 15 ICU patients. Modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale (mMRC), EuroQol Group's Questionnaire, spirometry, diffusion capacity (DLCO), six-minute walk test, pulse oximetry, and low-dose CT scan were performed three months after discharge.mMRC was >0 in 54% and >1 in 19% of the participants. The median (25th–75th percentile) forced vital capacity and forced expiratory volume in one second were 94% (76, 121) and 92% (84, 106) of predicted, respectively. DLCO was below the lower limit of normal in 24%. Ground-glass opacities (GGO) with >10% distribution in ≥1 of 4 pulmonary zones were present in 25%, while 19% had parenchymal bands on chest CT. ICU survivors had similar dyspnoea scores and pulmonary function as non-ICU patients, but higher prevalence of GGO (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 4.2 [1.1, 15.6]) and performance in lower usual activities.Three months after admission for COVID-19, one fourth of the participants had chest CT opacities and reduced diffusion capacity. Admission to ICU was associated with pathological CT findings. This was not reflected in increased dyspnoea or impaired lung function.
Our findings are the first to demonstrate that HFpEF induces significant molecular, mitochondrial, histological, and functional alterations in the diaphragm and soleus, which were attenuated by exercise training. These data therefore reveal novel mechanisms and potential therapeutic treatments of exercise intolerance in HFpEF.
BackgroundThis study aimed to describe cardiopulmonary function during exercise 3 months after hospital discharge for COVID-19 and compare groups according to dyspnoea and intensive care unit (ICU) stay.MethodsParticipants with COVID-19 discharged from five large Norwegian hospitals were consecutively invited to a multicentre, prospective cohort study. In total, 156 participants (mean age 56.2 years, 60 females) were examined with a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) 3 months after discharge and compared with a reference population. Dyspnoea was assessed using the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnoea scale.ResultsPeak oxygen uptake (V′O2 peak) <80% predicted was observed in 31% (n=49). Ventilatory efficiency was reduced in 15% (n=24), while breathing reserve <15% was observed in 16% (n=25). Oxygen pulse <80% predicted was found in 18% (n=28). Dyspnoea (mMRC ≥1) was reported by 47% (n=59). These participants had similar V′O2 peak (p=0.10) but lower mean±sdV′O2 peak·kg−1 % predicted compared with participants without dyspnoea (mMRC 0) (76±16% versus 89±18%; p=0.009) due to higher body mass index (p=0.03). For ICU- versus non-ICU-treated participants, mean±sdV′O2 peak % predicted was 82±15% and 90±17% (p=0.004), respectively. Ventilation, breathing reserve and ventilatory efficiency were similar between the ICU and non-ICU groups.ConclusionsOne-third of participants experienced V′O2 peak <80% predicted 3 months after hospital discharge for COVID-19. Dyspnoeic participants were characterised by lower exercise capacity due to obesity and lower ventilatory efficiency. Ventilation and ventilatory efficiency were similar between ICU- and non-ICU-treated participants.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.