Abstract
Rationale This study aimed to describe cardiopulmonary function during exercise 3 months after hospital discharge for COVID-19 and compare groups according to dyspnea and intensive care unit (ICU) stay.
Methods Participants 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 to a reference population. Dyspnea was assessed using the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale (mMRC).
Results Peak oxygen uptake (V̇O2) <80% of 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% of predicted was found in 18% (n=28). Dyspnea (mMRC ≥1) was reported by 38% (n=59). These participants had similar peak V̇O2 (p=0.10), but lower mean peak (sd) V̇O2·kg−1 % of predicted compared to participants without dyspnea (mMRC 0) (76 (16)% versus 89 (18)%, p =0.009) due to higher body mass index (p=0.03). In participants treated at ICU versus non-ICU, mean peak (sd) V̇O2% of predicted were 82 (15)% and 90 (17)% (p=0.004), respectively. Ventilation, breathing reserve, and ventilatory efficiency were similar between the ICU and non-ICU groups.
Conclusions One- third experienced peak V̇O2 <80% of predicted 3 months after hospital discharge for COVID-19. Dyspneic 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.
Abstract
Oxygen uptake was reduced in one-third of the participants 3 months after hospitalisation for COVID-19. The most common exercise limitation was deconditioning. Circulatory limitations to exercise were more common than ventilatory limitations.
Background
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is responsible for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic [1, 2]. COVID-19 mainly affects the respiratory system, but other organs may also be involved [3]. A recent 6-month follow-up study found the most common persistent COVID-19 symptoms to be fatigue/muscle weakness (63%) and dyspnea (26%) [4]. Several studies have reported a high prevalence of dyspnea (16% to 89%) 1.5 to 6 months after COVID-19 in hospitalised and non-hospitalised participants [5–8].
A recent report from a Norwegian cohort of hospitalised COVID-19 patients found no strong association between dyspnea at 3 months and reduced gas diffusion capacity [7], although close to one-fifth reported dyspnea >1 on the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale [7, 9]. A cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) might differentiate the pathophysiological mechanisms of reduced exercise capacity and dyspnea [10], as it integrates assessments of the cardiovascular, respiratory, and muscular systems during maximum exertion [11]. Two studies reporting CPET data for 81 participants after hospitalisation for moderate to severe COVID-19 found reduced peak V̇O2 in a large proportion of participants [3, 12]. One of the studies selectively included participants treated with mechanical ventilation, and both studies included a limited number of participants. To our knowledge, no multicentre, population-based study has yet reported extensive CPET results or compared different subgroups of hospitalised COVID-19 patients. We hypothesised that COVID-19 patients would have reduced exercise capacity. Furthermore, we hypothesised persistent cardiopulmonary exercise limitations, particularly in persons with self-reported dyspnea or intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Therefore, we aimed to determine the cardiopulmonary function during exercise 3–4 months after hospital discharge for COVID-19 compared to a reference population, and to describe characteristics of participants with exercise limitations.
Methods
Study design and sample
The current study is a substudy of Patient-reported outcomes and lung function after hospital admission for COVID-19 (PROLUN), a multicentre prospective cohort study performed at six hospitals in Southern Norway [7]. The substudy included participants from five of the hospitals. Participants ≥18 years who had been admitted for >8 h with a discharge diagnosis of COVID-19 before June 1, 2020, were considered eligible. Exclusion criteria included prior diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), myocardial infarction, heart failure or peripheral arterial disease, living outside the hospitals’ catchment areas, inability to provide informed consent, or participating in the World Health Organization (WHO) Solidarity trial. Further details on the study design and participants have been reported [7]. Eligible participants were invited by mail at 2–4 weeks after hospital discharge. Informed consent was obtained by returning a written signed consent form or through a secure digital consent form (Services for Sensitive Data, TSD, University of Oslo). Among the 264 participants who provided consent for the main study, 236 were invited to participate in the current substudy. The participants were examined 3 months after hospital discharge. WHO Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement was used to score the severity of the COVID-19 infection [13].
The study was approved by Regional Ethics Committee, South-Eastern Norway (no. 125384), and data protection officers at each participating centre. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04535154).
Pulmonary function tests
Pulmonary function tests included spirometry and diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) (Jaeger Master Screen PFT Vyaire Medical GmbH, Germany). International reference values were applied [14, 15]. The mMRC dyspnea scale was used as a self-rating tool to measure the degree of disability that breathlessness poses on activities of daily living on a scale from 0 to 4 [9]. Participants were categorised as having dyspnea (mMRC 1–4) or no dyspnea (mMRC 0).
Cardiopulmonary exercise test
CPET (Jaeger Vyntus CPX, Vyaire Medical GmbH, Germany) was performed on a treadmill with continuous measurements of ventilation (V̇E), oxygen consumption (V̇O2), expired carbon dioxide (V̇CO2), heart rate (HR), electrocardiogram (ECG), and oxygen saturation (SpO2) [10, 16]. An incremental modified Bruce protocol to exhaustion was specified for each participant based on reported exercise tolerance. Concurrently perceived exertion and dyspnea were assessed using the Borg CR10 Scale [17]. V̇O2·kg−1, oxygen pulse (V̇O2/HR), V̇E/V̇CO2 slope, and ventilatory equivalents were calculated. V̇O2·kg−1 will be referred to as exercise capacity. Ventilatory efficiency was assessed by the V̇E/V̇CO2 slope up to the ventilatory compensation point and by nadir ventilatory equivalent for CO2 (EqCO2nadir). Breathing reserve was calculated as (1- V̇Epeak/maximal voluntary ventilation (MVV))×100%, using an estimate of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)×40 for MVV [10]. The anaerobic threshold was assessed by the V-slope method [16]. A capillary blood sample was drawn from the fingertip immediately after exercise termination and analysed for lactate, pH, and carbon dioxide tension (PcCO2) (ABL 800 Flex, Radiometer Medical, Denmark). All CPETs were performed at two test centres, LHL Hospital Gardermoen or St. Olav's University Hospital.
Interpretation of the cardiopulmonary exercise test
Normal values from a Norwegian reference population with similar comorbidities (hypertension and diabetes) were used to compare the participants’ cardiopulmonary function during exercise [18]. Z-scores ≤1.96 were defined as abnormally reduced and z-scores >1.96 as abnormally increased, corresponding to the 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles of the reference population [14, 19]. To allow comparisons with other published studies, some of the CPET variables were reported as <80% of the predicted value.
The cause of limitation to exercise was determined for all participants with V̇O2peak <80% of predicted. Ventilatory limitation to exercise was considered when breathing reserve was <15%. Circulatory limitation was considered when the Wassermann flowchart led to a circulatory category [16], including ECG changes consistent with ischemia or arrhythmia. Ischemia was defined as ≥1 mm horizontal or downsloping ST-segment depression in at least two adjacent leads that persisted at 80 ms after the J point. Deconditioning was considered in participants with V̇O2peak <80% of predicted without evidence of ventilatory or circulatory exercise limitations. For the consideration of dysfunctional breathing as a reason for high EqCO2nadir and V̇E/V̇CO2 slope, visual inspection of changes in tidal volume and respiratory frequency during exercise was made, as well as evaluation of capillary pCO2 and pH at peak exercise.
Biochemistry
Non-fasting venous blood samples were collected to measure hemoglobin, C-reactive protein, N-terminal (NT)-pro-B-type-natriuretic-peptide (BNP) (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Cobas 8000, e801, e601, Germany and Abbott Architect i2000SR, USA) and high-sensitive cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Cobas 8000, e801, e601, Germany). The maximum values during hospital stay and after 3-months are reported.
Statistical analyses
Descriptive statistics are presented with a mean (sd), median (25th to 75th percentile), or number (%), as appropriate. Z-scores were compared with 0 using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Group comparisons of dyspnea versus no dyspnea and ICU versus non-ICU were performed with linear regression analysis for continuous variables, adjusting for age and sex. Because of the slight deviation from a normal distribution of the residuals in some of the linear regression models, we estimated p-values from bootstrapping with 10 000 repetitions for all models. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata version 16.1 (StataCorp., College Station, TX, USA). We chose a 5% significance level using two-sided tests.
Results
Participant characteristics and initial treatment
Of the 236 participants invited from the main study, 189 consented to participate in the present substudy, which was completed at a median of 104 (90–139) days after discharge from the hospital. Altogether 26 participants were excluded due to comorbidity (COPD, myocardial infarction, heart failure, or peripheral arterial disease), and seven had submaximal, inconclusive CPET (figure 1). Table 1 summarises the descriptives of the study. The age variation was from 18 to 88 years (table 1). Obesity (body mass index (BMI) >30 kg·m−2) was found in 46 participants (30%). Pulmonary embolus or deep vein thrombus related to the current hospitalisation were observed in 5%. The participants were hospitalised for a median of 6 (3–11) days. A total of 31 participants (20%) were treated at an intensive care unit (ICU) for median 9 (4–14) days, and 20 (13%) were intubated and mechanically ventilated for median 9 (7–15) days. At the time of the study, 3 months after hospital discharge, results below lower limit of normal (z-score ≤1.64) were observed in 13% (n=19) for FEV1, in 5% (n=7) for FVC, in 20% (n=31) for DLCO, and in 6% (n=9) for DLCO/VA. Dyspnea, as indicated by mMRC 1–4, was reported in 59 participants (47%) (table 1).
Cardiopulmonary function
V̇O2peak <80% of predicted was observed in 49 participants (31%). V̇O2peak·kg−1 <80% of predicted was observed in 73 participants (47%). Pathological AT, <40% of predicted V̇O2max, was observed in 23 participants (15%).
Ventilatory limitation was observed in 25 (16%), expressed as breathing reserve<15% [16, 19]. Among participants with V̇O2peak <80% of predicted, 4 (8%) demonstrated low breathing reserve.
Mean SpO2 at rest was 98 (1)% and at maximal load 95 (4)%. We found a desaturation of>5% points in SpO2 between rest and maximal load in 34 participants (23%).
Oxygen pulse <80% of predicted was observed in 28 participants (18%). Of these, four demonstrated a declining O2-pulse curve with an increasing load. During exercise, a pathological response on ECG was observed in 12 participants (8%). Of these, ischemia and arrhythmia (mainly multifocal premature ventricular contractions) were found in seven and five participants, respectively.
Reduced ventilatory efficiency was observed in 15% (n=24), defined by high V̇E/V̇CO2 slope and/or EqCO2nadir (z-score >1.96). A high V̇E/V̇CO2 slope was observed in 19 (12%) and high EqCO2nadir in 16 (10%), respectively. Among those with reduced ventilatory efficiency, four participants (17%) had a ventilatory limitation, nine (38%) a circulatory limitation, and 11 (46%) had dysfunctional breathing patterns (hyperventilation, stress reaction). Among the nine participants with reduced ventilatory efficiency due to circulatory factors, seven demonstrated ECG pathology during exercise, and two experienced venous thromboembolism during the acute phase of COVID-19.
Exercise limiting factors were multifactorial and described in the 49 participants with V̇O2peak <80% of predicted. Ventilatory limitations were observed in 7 (14%), circulatory limitations in 11 (22%), and deconditioning in 31 (63%).
Table 2 summarises the differences of the CPET variables in the COVID-19 patients compared to the reference population.
Cardiopulmonary function in subgroups
Dyspnea
The participants reporting dyspnea had significantly lower V̇O2peak·kg−1, ventilatory efficiency, heart rate, and systolic blood pressure (table 3). The low V̇O2peak·kg−1 in the dyspneic group was related to higher BMI, as V̇O2peak was similar between the groups (p=0.052).
ICU stay
The participants with ICU stay had significantly lower V̇O2peak % of predicted (90 (17)% versus 82 (15)%, p=0.004) and V̇O2peak·kg−1 % of predicted (86 (19)% versus 76 (15)%, p=0.002) compared to those without ICU stay. No difference was found regarding age, BMI, ventilation, breathing reserve, oxygen desaturation, ventilatory efficiency, or O2-pulse.
Discussion
The current study demonstrated V̇O2peak <80% of predicted in one third of COVID-19 patients 3 months after hospital discharge. Every sixth participant had a reduced breathing reserve, ventilatory efficiency, oxygen pulse, or a combination. Deconditioning was the major cause of exercise limitation, followed by circulatory and ventilatory exercise limitation. Self-reported dyspnea was associated with lower ventilatory efficiency, and lower V̇O2peak·kg−1 due to higher BMI. There was less difference in cardiorespiratory exercise response than expected between participants admitted to ICU or regular hospital ward.
Reduced exercise capacity is an independent predictor of death in men [20] and women [21]. Our finding of low V̇O2peak compared to a reference population, therefore, emphasises the importance of regaining exercise capacity after COVID-19. Belli et al. reported difficulty regaining physical ability after COVID-19 [22], which has led to a recommendation of rehabilitation programs [22]. We observed that V̇O2peak·kg−1 was more divergent from the reference population than V̇O2peak, reflecting obesity in our study population. Obesity is a well-recognized risk factor for severe COVID-19 [23].
Two studies, including COVID-19 patients, found V̇O2peak of 81 and 73% of predicted [3, 24], which is comparable to our results, whereas another study reported V̇O2peak of 57% of predicted for mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients [12].
Exercise limiting factors can be related to ventilation, circulation, deconditioning, or peripheral mechanisms. Deconditioning was the leading cause of exercise limitation in the present study and found in every fifth participant. Immobilisation during hospitalisation for 10 days combined with further inactivity due to exertional dyspnea could be the reason for the deconditioning in our participants, where reduced cardiac output, peripheral limiting factors, and muscle waste contribute. In a recent report of 18 COVID-19 patients at the time of discharge from the hospital, peripheral limiting factors, including anemia and reduced oxygen extraction by peripheral muscles, were the major determinants of exercise limitation [25]. However, our study population did not suffer from anemia during the hospital stay or at follow-up.
The second most common cause of exercise limitation was circulatory factors. COVID-19 might affect multiple organs, including the heart and blood vessels [26]. The finding of frequent circulatory exercise limitation could rely on other factors than post-COVID sequelae. Even though we excluded participants with known pre-existing cardiovascular disease, some might still have had undiagnosed pre-exisiting cardiovascular conditions that were revealed during CPET. Furthermore, the diagnostic accuracy of an exercise ECG is around 70% [27], and we cannot rule out deconditioning as the true exercise limitation for some of these participants. Two participants with circulatory exercise limitation experienced pulmonary embolism during the hospitalisation, but it is unlikely that this contributes to circulatory exercise limitation 3 months after discharge. A hemodynamic study of 21 mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, including three with pulmonary embolus, found normal pulmonary vascular resistance for all. Post-capillary pulmonary hypertension was present in 76%, but none exhibited the pre-capillary form related to pulmonary embolisation [28].
Ventilatory limitation was the third most common cause of exercise limitation. We have recently reported pulmonary parenchymal abnormalities by chest CT in 25% of a sample from the same population [7]. However, low breathing reserve was not common among our participants, showing that breathing reserve may be within normal limits, even in the presence of parenchymal abnormalities. Few participants had reduced spirometry and gas diffusion capacity, as well as reduced breathing reserve during exercise, in contrast to what was anticipated for this population in the beginning of the pandemic. The discordance in results of pulmonary function tests and the lower exercise capacity supports the finding of low occurrence of ventilatory limitation, as deconditioning represents the major limitation of the study population. Deconditioning is positive finding in the context of regaining physical function through rehabilitation.
Ventilatory efficiency was reduced in every seventh patient. There was evidence of ventilation/perfusion (V̇/Q) mismatch due to pulmonary or circulatory factors in about half of these patients. For the other half, a dysfunctional breathing pattern seemed to contribute to the reduced ventilatory efficiency. Unfortunately, we did not have arterial blood gas analyses to prove hyperventilation. However, dysfunctional breathing pattern and hyperventilation has been reported as a frequent cause of dyspnea in a study of mild COVID-19 survivors [29]. Whether this is related to dysautonomia or other factors is unclear.
As comorbidity affects exercise capacity, we excluded participants with severe comorbidity. In contrast, we did not exclude participants with well-regulated diabetes mellitus or hypertension, as the reference population for CPET also included such participants [18]. Asthma was common in the study population, but they did not exhibit ventilatory limitation, and well-controlled asthma should not interfere with exercise capacity.
Cardiopulmonary function in subgroups
Exertional dyspnea was frequently reported among our participants, which is in line with other studies [4–8]. Dyspnea is a complex symptom that has been defined by the American Thoracic Society as the net result of multiple physiological, psychological, social, and environmental factors [30].
When we compared participants with and without dyspnea, the dyspneic participants had significantly lower V̇O2peak, but there were no differences in ventilation, breathing reserve, SpO2, and DLCO. This indicates that dyspnea is associated with other factors than pulmonary function.
V̇E/V̇CO2 slope and EqCO2nadir were higher in the dyspneic group. These high values mainly reflect V̇/Q mismatch but might also represent dysfunctional breathing. Deconditioning alone could not explain the difference in perception of dyspnea, as V̇O2 at AT, both absolute and relative to predicted V̇O2max, were similar and low in both groups. Hence, our results indicate that dyspnea after COVID-19 is complex with several explanations.
The participants admitted to the ICU had more severe oxygenation problems in the acute phase and three times longer hospital stay than those not admitted to the ICU. At 3 months after discharge, the ICU participants had significantly lower V̇O2peak. Otherwise, they had similar test results. We had expected ICU participants to have more ventilatory limitations, worse O2-desaturation, more V̇/Q-mismatch, and earlier AT due to deconditioning. To our knowledge, there are no CPET studies on COVID-19 patients treated at ICU versus regular ward for comparison with our findings. The ICU participants' observed results might be due to extra care after discharge, with higher attendance at inpatient rehabilitation programs than non-ICU participants. Results probably also reflect the effect of substantial lung tissue repair during the first 3 months [31, 32].
Limitations and strengths
We did not have objective measures for prior functional status and exercise capacity for the study population. We have compared the participants with a healthy reference population, although we have documented pre-existing comorbidity. Estimates of oxygen saturation during exercise using pulse oximetry should be viewed cautiously, as errors might have occurred. CPET generates numerous variables, with the risk of errors due to multiple testing. The limited number of participants in the ICU group could possibly lead to type 2 errors. The studýs strenght is its design, with an unselected hospital population and extensive medical examination of the participants. Even though less patients were treated at ICU compared to many other countries, the proportion of comorbidities and obesity is comparable to other studies, and we consider our study and the results generalisable to other countries.
Conclusions
Three months after discharge from hospital after COVID-19, V̇O2peak was reduced in one- third of the participants. The most common exercise limitation was deconditioning, emphasising the importance of rehabilitation programs. Circulatory limitations to exercise were more common than ventilatory limitations. Participants with self-reported dyspnea had lower V̇O2peak·kg−1 and ventilatory efficiency. There were no differences in ventilation or ventilatory efficiency between those with or without ICU admission. In patients with persisting exercise limitations and dyspnea after COVID-19, cardiopulmonary exercise testing is essential for identifying the causes.
Footnotes
Support statement: Landsforeningen for Hjerte- og Lungesyke; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100010698; Akershus Universitetssykehus; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100012446; Nasjonalforeningen for Folkehelsen; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013263.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Ingunn Skjørten has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Odd Andre Wathne Ankerstjerne has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Divna Trebinjac has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Eivind Brønstad has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Øystein Rasch-Halvorsen has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Gunnar Einvik has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Tøri Vigeland Lerum has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Knut Stavem has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Anne Edvardsen has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Charlotte Björk Ingul has nothing to disclose.
- Received April 5, 2021.
- Accepted June 21, 2021.
- Copyright ©The authors 2021. For reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org