Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35998172›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2022

Effects of surgical and FFP2 masks on cardiopulmonary exercise capacity in patients with heart failure.

Alexander Kogel, Pierre Hepp, Tina Stegmann, Adrienn Tünnemann-Tarr, Roberto Falz, Patrick Fischer, Felix Mahfoud, Ulrich Laufs, Sven Fikenzer

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Alexander KogelKlinik und Poliklinik für Kardiologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1842-4480
Pierre HeppKlinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie, Unfallchirurgie und Plastische Chirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Tina StegmannKlinik und Poliklinik für Kardiologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Adrienn Tünnemann-TarrKlinik und Poliklinik für Kardiologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Roberto FalzInstitute of Sport Medicine and Prevention, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Patrick FischerKlinik für Innere Medizin III, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Saarland University, Homburg (Saar), Germany.
Felix MahfoudKlinik für Innere Medizin III, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Saarland University, Homburg (Saar), Germany.
Ulrich LaufsKlinik und Poliklinik für Kardiologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Sven FikenzerKlinik und Poliklinik für Kardiologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9713-9401
University Hospital Leipzig · DEUniversitätsklinikum des Saarlandes · DELeipzig University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsSurgical and FFP2 masks are recommended to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The cardiopulmonary effects of facemasks in patients with chronic heart failure are unknown. This prospective, cross-over study quantified the effects of wearing no mask (nm), surgical mask (sm), and FFP2 mask (ffpm) in patients with stable heart failure.

methods12 patients with clinically stable chronic heart failure (HF) (age 63.8±12 years, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 43.8±11%, NTProBNP 573±567 pg/ml) underwent spiroergometry with and without masks in a randomized sequence. Comfort/discomfort was assessed using a standardized questionnaire.

resultsMaximum power was reduced with both types of masks (nm: 108.3 W vs. sm: 101.2 W vs. ffpm: 95.6 W, p<0.01). Maximum respiratory oxygen uptake (1499ml/min vs. 1481 ml/min vs. 1300 ml/min, p = 0.95 and <0.01), peak ventilation (62.1 l/min vs. 56.4 l/min vs. 50.3 l/min, p = 0.15 and p<0.05) and O2-pulse (11.6 ml/beat vs. 11.8 ml/beat vs. 10.6 ml/beat, p = 0.87 and p<0.01) were significantly changed with ffpm but not sm. Discomfort was moderately but significantly increased (nm: 1.6 vs. sm: 3.4 vs. ffpm: 4.4, p<0.05).

conclusionBoth surgical and FFP masks reduce exercise capacity in heart failure patients, while FFP2 masks reduce oxygen uptake and peak ventilation. This reduction in cardiopulmonary performance should be considered in heart failure patients whose daily life activities are often just as challenging as exercise is for healthy adults.

Indexed as

COVID-19Heart FailureAdultAgedCross-Over StudiesExercise TestExercise ToleranceHumansMiddle AgedOxygenProspective StudiesSARS-CoV-2Stroke VolumeVentricular Function, LeftOxygen

Identifiers

PMID35998172
PMCPMC9397906
OpenAlexW4292844468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.