Journal Information
Visits
3833
Vol. 28. Issue 4.
(1 July 2024)
Systematic Review
Full text access
Determinants of cardiorespiratory fitness measured by cardiopulmonary exercise testing in COVID-19 survivors: a systematic review with meta-analysis and meta&#¿;regression
Visits
3833
Mansueto Gomes-Netoa,b,
Corresponding author
mansueto.neto@ufba.br

Corresponding author: Departamento de Fisioterapia, Universidade Federal da Bahia- UFBA. Instituto de Ciências da Saúde. Av. Reitor Miguel Calmon s/n - Vale do Canela Salvador, BA CEP 40.110-100, Brazil.
, Katna de Oliveira Almeidab, Helena França Correiaa, Juliana Costa Santosa, Vinicius Afonso Gomesb,c, Juliane Penalva Costa Serrac, André Rodrigues Durãesb, Vitor Oliveira Carvalhod
a Physical Therapy Department, Universidade Federal da Bahia (UFBA), Salvador, BA, Brazil
b Postgraduate Program in Medicine and Health, Universidade Federal da Bahia (UFBA), Salvador, BA, Brazil
c Hospital Especializado Otávio Mangabeira, Salvador, BA, Brazil
d Physical Therapy Department, Universidade Federal de Sergipe (UFS), Aracaju, SE, Brazil
Highlights

  • Cardiorespiratory fitness measured by cardiopulmonary exercise testing is consistently impaired in COVID-19 survivors.

  • The degree of reduction of cardiorespiratory fitness is inversely associated with age, time post-COVID-19, disease severity, presence of dyspnea, and reduced exercise capacity.

  • Future research should investigate the mechanisms of cardiorespiratory fitness reduction in addition to investigating possible therapeutic strategies to maximize fitness post COVID-19.

This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Figures (3)
Show moreShow less
Tables (2)
Table 1. Characteristics of the participants of the studies included in the systematic review.
Tables
Table 2. Outcomes VO2peak, VO2AT, FVC, FEV1 for studies included in the systematic review.
Tables
Show moreShow less
Additional material (1)
Abstract
Background

The relationship between cardiorespiratory fitness and its possible determinants in post-COVID-19 survivors has not been systematically assessed.

Objectives

To identify and summarize studies comparing cardiorespiratory fitness measured by cardiopulmonary exercise testing in COVID-19 survivors versus non-COVID-19 controls, as well as to determine the influence of potential moderating factors.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and SciELO since their inceptions until June 2022. Mean differences (MD), standard mean differences (SMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were used to evaluate potential moderating factors.

Results

48 studies (3372 participants, mean age 42 years, and with a mean testing time of 4 months post-COVID-19) were included, comprising a total of 1823 COVID-19 survivors and 1549 non-COVID-19 controls. After data pooling, VO2 peak (SMD=1.0 95% CI: 0.5, 1.5; 17 studies; N = 1273) was impaired in COVID-19 survivors. In 15 studies that reported VO2 peak values in mL/min/kg, non-COVID-19 controls had higher peak VO2 values than COVID-19 survivors (MD=6.2, 95% CI: 3.5, 8.8; N = 905; I2=84%). In addition, VO2 peak was associated with age, time post-COVID-19, disease severity, presence of dyspnea, and reduced exercise capacity.

Conclusion

This systematic review provides evidence that cardiorespiratory fitness may be impaired in COVID-19 survivors, especially for those with severe disease, presence of dyspnea, and reduced exercise capacity. Furthermore, the degree of reduction of VO2 peak is inversely associated with age and time post-COVID.

Keywords:
Cardiopulmonary exercise test
Cardiorespiratory fitness
Long COVID
Post-COVID syndrome
Full Text
Introduction

Cardiorespiratory fitness refers to the capacity of the circulatory and respiratory systems to supply oxygen to skeletal muscle mitochondria for energy production needed during physical activity.1 Cardiorespiratory fitness has been considered a vital sign by the American Heart Association.2 Low cardiorespiratory fitness is associated to health outcomes and mortality, even in healthy individuals.2,3 Cardiorespiratory fitness is also a clinical hallmark of chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular diseases.3,4

The gold standard method to assess cardiorespiratory fitness is exercise testing to measure peak oxygen consumption (VO2 peak).2,5 Therefore, the importance of assessing cardiorespiratory fitness by cardiopulmonary exercise test has gained even more attention in the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.5

Recently, a systematic review that included 35 studies concluded that COVID-19 survivors had reduced levels of physical function, activities of daily living, and health-related quality of life.6 Furthermore, incomplete recovery of physical function, and performance in activities of daily living were observed 1 to 6 months post-infection. Thus, physical disability is a common condition in COVID-19 survivors.6 According to Arena & Faghy,5 the evidence that COVID-19 has upon cardiorespiratory fitness is not surprising given the potential impact of COVID-19 on the cardiac, pulmonary, and skeletal muscular systems.5 In addition, Rahmati et al. ,7 published a recent meta-analysis to analyze the long-term sequelae conditions of COVID-19. Their findings suggest that 2-year after recovery from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, 41.7% of survivors still present with either neurological, physical, or psychological sequela.7

It is well established that cardiopulmonary exercise test gives valid information regarding cardiorespiratory fitness impairment and insights about the mechanisms of this reduction.5,8 Analyzing the impact of COVID-19 on cardiorespiratory fitness and its determinants is particularly important to improve clinical-decision making in the context of rehabilitation.5,8

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify and summarize studies comparing cardiorespiratory fitness using cardiopulmonary exercise testing between COVID-19 survivors versus non-COVID-19 controls, as well as to summarize the determinants of cardiorespiratory fitness.

Methods

This systematic review was designed and performed in accordance with the recommendations from the Cochrane Handbook9 and completed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.10 This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO 2022: CRD42022325991. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022325991

Eligibility criteria

This systematic review included studies that investigated cardiorespiratory fitness measured by cardiopulmonary exercise test in COVID-19 survivors. Studies were eligible for this systematic review if they met the following criteria: a) Population: adult COVID-19 survivors (≥18 years); b) outcome: studies that investigated cardiorespiratory fitness measured by cardiopulmonary exercise test; c) study design: observational (cross-sectional, case-control, or cohort) studies with or without age-matched non-COVID-19 controls. Studies that enrolled patients with other pre-existing cardiopulmonary, neurological, oncological, and/or musculoskeletal diseases were excluded.

The primary outcome of this study was a cardiorespiratory fitness measure, VO2 peak expressed in mL/min/kg or L/min. Secondary outcomes were oxygen consumption at anaerobic threshold (VO2 AT) (mL/min/kg or L/min), first and/or second ventilatory threshold, and maximal workload in the cardiopulmonary exercise test.

Information sources and search strategy

We screened the MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) from inception to June 2022, without language restrictions. For gray literature search, Opengrey and Proquest were used. A standard protocol for this search was developed and whenever possible, controlled vocabulary (Mesh term for PubMed and Cochrane) was used. Keywords and their synonyms were used for a more sensitive search.9

Search strategy

The strategy developed by Higgins and Green9 was used to identify the published studies in MEDLINE/PubMed. To identify the studies in the other databases, an adapted search strategy using similar terms was adopted. For the preparation of the search strategy, three groups of keywords were used: study design, participants, and outcomes. The search strategy for MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Scielo are presented in Supplementary material - Table S1. We checked the reference lists used in articles included in this systematic review to identify other potentially eligible studies.

Data collection and analysis

Each identified title and abstract were independently evaluated by two reviewers. If at least one of the reviewers considered one reference eligible, the full text was obtained for complete assessment. Two reviewers independently assessed the full texts to verify if they met the eligibility criteria. In case of any disagreement, authors discussed the reasons for their decisions and a consensual decision was made.

Two reviewers independently extracted data from the published reports using standard data extraction forms adapted from the Cochrane Handbook.9 The following variables were summarized in a pre-formatted spreadsheet: authors, year of publication, inclusion/exclusion criteria, characteristics of study participants (n, age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities, disease severity, hospitalization, time post-COVID-19).

The software EndNote X7.8 (Clarivate, Philadelphia, PA) was used for analysis of eligibility criteria and duplicate analysis. Thus, all studies selected from the databases were exported in an appropriate file and analyzed in the software EndNote X7.8. Then, the exported files were also added to the Rayyan Software for evaluation, selection, and data extraction independently by two reviewers. Aspects of the study population, measures performed, follow-up period and rates of missing data, outcome measures, and results were reviewed.

Risk of bias assessment

Two independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality and risk of bias for all studies, using the Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS)11 for observational cohort and case-control studies, and the Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale adapted for cross-sectional studies. With the original version, all studies were judged based on 8 items grouped into 3 major domains (participant selection, group comparability, and ascertainment of exposure); scores range from 0 to 9, with scores ≥7 indicating high quality. The modified and adapted NOS evaluates 7 methodological items and their reporting (scores 0−10), with scores ≥7 consistent with high-quality studies.11

Data analysis

For continuous data (VO2 peak, VO2AT), the mean difference between-groups (COVID-19 group vs non-COVID-19 controls or data before the pandemic) was calculated with pertinent 95% confidence intervals (CIs). An α value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical heterogeneity of the treatment effect among studies was assessed using Cochran's Q test and the I2 inconsistency test statistic, in which values 0–40%: might not be important; 30–60%: may represent moderate heterogeneity; 50–90%: may represent substantial heterogeneity; 75–100%: considerable heterogeneity.9 To investigate the influence of participant characteristics and clinical outcomes on pooled meta-analysis, subgroup analyses (categorical covariates) and random-effects meta-regression (continuous covariates) were performed. Where applicable, subgroup analyses were performed to determine the associations among VO2 peak and categorical variables such as sex, previous physical activity (athletes vs non-athletes), dyspnea, and disease severity. Meta-regression analyses were performed to determine the associations among the VO2 peak and potential modulating factors (sample size, age, % females, body mass index, and post-COVID-19 time). In all meta-regression models, studies were weighted by the inverse variance of the dependent variable. Potential modulating factors were entered as independent variables in regressions models with VO2 peak as the dependent variable. To explore the robustness of our findings we performed a sensitivity analysis. We repeated the main analysis by including only high-quality studies (NOS score ≥7). We also repeated the analysis separating the studies by their design (cohort and cross-sectional). To re-express the SMD, we selected a study included in the original meta-analysis that we considered representative of the population with low risk of bias and multiplied its standard deviation by the pooled SMD. The analyses were conducted using Review Manager Version 5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration)12 and R 4.1.3.13

Funnel plots of effect size (Hedge's g) against the standard error, Begg rank correlation test, or Egger's regression test were used to assess publication bias if more than 10 studies were included in the meta-analysis.9

ResultsDescription of selected studies

The initial search identified 7167 records. A total of 1183 records were excluded after reading the titles and abstracts, for not meeting the eligibility criteria. After a complete reading of 65 full-text records, 17 records were excluded (reasons presented in the flowchart and Supplementary material - Table S2). Finally, 48 studies14–61 met the eligibility criteria. Manual search did not find additional relevant studies. Supplementary material – Fig. S1 shows the flow diagram of studies in this review according to PRISMA guidelines.

Of the 48 studies included in this systematic review, 32 were cohort, and 16 cross-sectional studies. For each study, design, sample size, sex, outcomes measures, methodological quality, and key findings were extracted (Table 1).

Table 1.

Characteristics of the participants of the studies included in the systematic review.

Author/year  Study design  N analyzed; mean age; sex%  Time post-covid  Hospital admission  ICU admission  COVID Group  Control Group  NOS 
Ambrosino et al. 202214  Cross‐sectional  36; 54.5; 91.7% male  ≥2 months  Yes  Yes  COVID-19 with normal exercise capacityCOVID-19 with reduced exercise capacity  NA 
Baptista et al. 202215  Cohort  105; 59.2; 79% male  ≥3 months  Yes  Yes  COVID-19 with normal exercise capacityCOVID-19 with reduced exercise capacity  NA 
Brown et al. 202216  Case-control  60; 51.6; 56.6% male  ≥3 months  Yes  Yes  COVID-19 with normal exercise capacityCOVID-19 with reduced exercise capacity  non-COVID-19 
Costello et al. 202117  Cross‐sectional  24; 26; 75% male  <1 month  Not  Not  COVID-19 athletes  non-COVID-19 athletes 
Evers et al. 202218  Cohort  30; 51.5; 60% male  ≥4 months  Yes  Yes  COVID-19 with non-limited CPETCOVID-19 with limited CPET  NA 
Gruenewaldt et al. 202219  Cross‐sectional  20; 49.8; 54% male  ≥3 months  Yes  Not  Obese normal BrPAbnormal BrP  NA 
Lacavalerie et al. 202220  Cohort  51; 61; 61% male  6 months  Yes  Yes  COVID-19 obese  non-COVID-19 obese 
Ladlow et al. 202221  Cohort  205; 38; 84% male  6 months  Yes  Not  Post-COVID-19 without dysautonomiaPost-COVID-19 with dysautonomia  NA 
Ladlow et al. 202222  Cohort  113; 39.6; 87% male  >5 months  Yes  Yes  H-SH-RC-SC-R  non-COVID-19 
Milani et al. 202223  Cohort  288; 43.0; 57% male  <3 month  Yes  Yes  COVID-19 severeCOVID-19 moderateCOVID-19 Mild  non-COVID-19 
Mitrani et al. 202224  Cohort  174; 24; 70.1% male  <1 month  Not  Not  Post-COVID-19 athletes No-MIPost-COVID-19 athletes MI  NA 
Moulson et al. 202225  Cohort  63; 21.9; 43% female  <1 month  Not  Not  Post-COVID-19 athletes  Athletes without COVID-19 
Di Paco et al. 202226  Cross‐sectional  16; 22.9; 100% male  NR  Not  Not  COVID-19 athletes  NA 
Romero-Ortuno et al. 202227  Cross‐sectional  80; 46; 71% female  ≥7 months  Yes  Yes  Did not reach85% maximum HRReached85% maximum HR  NA 
Schaeffer et al. 202228  Cohort  49; 46.7; 55% male  3 months  Yes  Yes  Post-COVID-19 fatigueNon-fatigue  NA 
Singh et al. 202229  Cohort  20; 48; 85% female  ≥8 months  Yes  Yes  Post-COVID-19  Symptomatic patients without a prior history ofCOVID-19 
Wood et al. 202230  Cohort  22; NR; 86% female  ≥8 months  Yes  Yes  Post-COVID-19  NA 
Alba et al. 202131  Cohort  36; 47.0; 66.7% female  >4 months  Yes  Not  PASC  Without post-COVID-19syndrome 
Anastasio et al. 202132  Cross‐sectional  26; 21; 69% male  >1 months  Not  Not  Covid athletes  Athletes detrained 
Aparisi et al. 202133  Cohort  70; 54.8 73.2% female  3 months  Yes  Yes  Post-COVID-19 with persistent dyspneaPost-COVID-19 without residual dyspnea  NA 
Baratto et al. 202134  Cross‐sectional  36; 65.5; 72% male  NR  Yes  Not  Post-COVID-19  Patients who underwent a fullCPET for unexplained dyspnea 
Barbagelata et al. 202135  Cross‐sectional  200; 48.8; 51% male  >8 months  Yes  Not  Post-COVID-19syndrome  Without post-COVID-19syndrome 
Cassar et al. 202136  Cohort  88; 55; 59% male  3 months  Yes  Yes  COVID-19  COVID-19 negative controls 
Cavigli et al. 202137  Cross‐sectional  90; 24; 71.1% male  NR  Not  Not  Athletes post-COVID-19  NA 
Clavario et al. 202138  Cohort  200; 58.8; 86% female  3 months  Yes  Yes  VO2 below 85%VO2 above 85%  NA 
Csulak et al. 202139  Cohort  46; 23.6; 46.9% female  NR  Not  Not  COVID-19 swimmers  non-COVID-19 swimmers 
Debeaumont et al. 202140  Cross‐sectional  23; 59; 48% female  6 months  Yes  Yes  General ward survivorsICU survivors  NA 
Dorelli et al. 202141  Cohort  28; 56.5; 79% male  ≥3 months  Yes  Yes  Subjects with EVefSubjects with EVin  NA 
Fikenzer et al. 202142  Cohort  12; 24.5; 100% male  <1 month  Not  Not  COVID-19  non-COVID-19 
Gao et al. 202143  Cross‐sectional  10; 50.7; 70% male  1 month  Yes  Not  Post-COVID-19  NA 
Jahn et al. 202144  Cross‐sectional  35; 58; 17.1% female  3 months  Yes  Yes  Impaired VO2 maxNormal VO2 max  NA 
Komici et al. 202145  Cohort  24; 22.2; 100% male  NR  Not  Not  Post-COVID-19 athletes  Healthy control 
Liu et al. 202146  Cohort  41; 50; 54% male  6 months  Yes  Yes  Fibrosis groupNon-fibrosis group  NA 
Mancini et al. 202147  Cohort  41; 45.2; 23% female  3 months  Yes  Not  Post- COVID-19  NA 
Mazzucco et al. 202148  Cross‐sectional  80; 47.1; 40% female  >8 months  Not  Not  Pre-COVID-19 ergometryPost-COVID-19 ergometry  NA 
Milovancev et al. 202149  Cross‐sectional  16; 24; 100% male  NR  Not  Not  Post- COVID-19 athletes  NA 
Mohr et al. 202150  Cohort  10; 50; 60% male  ≥3 months  Yes  Yes  Post-COVID-19  NA 
Motiejunaite et al. 202151  Cohort  114; 57; 67% male  3 months  Yes  Yes  DLCO >75%DLCO ⩽75%  NA 
Oliynyk et al. 202152  Cohort  78; 68.4; 42% female  NA  Yes  Yes  COVID-19 survivors  Healthy subjects 
Pleguezuelos et al. 202153  Cross‐sectional  60; 52.2; 100% male  2 months  Yes  Yes  Post-COVID-19  COPDGIHDGHealthy individuals 
Raman et al. 202154  Cohort  88; 55; 59% male  ≥2 months  Yes  Yes  Post-COVID-19  Without post-COVID-19 
Rinaldo et al. 202155  Cohort  75; 86; 57% male  3 months  Yes  Yes  COVID-19 with normal exercise capacityCOVID-19 with reduced exercise capacity  NA 
Skjorten et al. 202156  Cohort  156; 56.2; 60% female  3 months  Yes  Yes  Post-COVID-19  NA 
Szekely et al. 202157  Cohort  71; 52.6; 66% male  ≥6 months  Yes  Yes  Post-COVID-19  Without post-COVID-19 
Xiao et al. 202158  Cohort  56; 48; 58% male  6 months  Yes  Yes  Post-COVID-19non-severePost-COVID-19severe  NA 
Vannini et al. 202159  Cohort  41; 57.3; 39% female  6 months  Yes  Yes  Mild pneumoniaSevere pneumoniaARDS  NA 
Varughese et al. 202160  Cohort  14; 54; 100% female  5 months  Yes  Yes  Post-COVID-19  Healthy control 
Vonbank et al. 202161  Cohort  150; 46.8; 47.3% female  ≥3 months  Yes  Yes  Post-COVID-19  Healthy individuals 

ARDS, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome; BrP, abnormal/normal breathing pattern; C-R, community-recovered; C-S, community-symptomatic; CON, control; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease group; COVIDG, COVID-19 group; COVID+ athletes, athletes who tested positive to COVID-19; COVID- athletes, athletes who tested negative to COVID-19; CPET, cardiopulmonary exercise testing; DLCO, diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide; EVef, exercise ventilatory efficiency; Evin, inefficiency exercise ventilatory; HDG, heart disease group; H-R,: hospitalized-recovered; H-S, hospitalized-symptomatic; NA, not analyzed; NOS, Newcastle-Ottawa scale; NR, not reported; PASC, patients post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection; PostCG, Post Covid Group; T0, before the sport season; T1,: immediately after return to COCID negative.

COVID-19-related outcomes on cardiorespiratory fitness measured by cardiopulmonary exercise test in included studies are described in Table 2. The % of predicted VO2 peak for both groups are presented in Supplementary material - Table S3. The mean quality of the studies was moderate-to-high, with an average score of 6.4 ± 1.2 (Supplementary material – Table S4).

Table 2.

Outcomes VO2peak, VO2AT, FVC, FEV1 for studies included in the systematic review.

    COVID GROUPCONTROL GROUP
Author/year    VO2peak mean (SD)  VO2AT mean (SD)  VO2peak mean (SD)  VO2AT mean (SD) 
Ambrosino et al. 202214  NEC (VO2 peak< 20)REC (VO2 peak ≥ 20)  21.7 (1.9)15.1 (3.0)  14.9 (2.6)11.6 (3.0)  NA  NA 
Baptista et al. 202215  NEC (VO2 peak ≥ 80% of predicted)REC (VO2 peak < 80% of predicted)  20.1 (5.1)14.8 (3.7)  NA  NA  NA 
Brown et al. 202216  COVID reducedCOVID normal  14.7 (2.3)19.4 (6.3)  NA  22.4 (8.1)  NA 
Costello et al. 202217  COVID+ athletes  41.5 (5.0)  NA  47.2 (10.6)  NA 
Evers et al. 202218  Nonlimited CPETLimited CPET  26.0 (7.0)21.0 (5.0)  NA  NA  NA 
Gruenewaldt et al. 202219  Normal BrPAbnormal BrP  28.8 (6.6)19.7 (6.3)  28.8 (6.7)19.7 (6.3)  NA  NA 
Lacavalerie et al. 202220  Obese COVID-19 patients  15.7 (5.0)  NA  15.3 (2.7)  NA 
Ladlow et al. 202221  Post-COVID without dysautonomiaPost-COVID with dysautonomia  35.8 (7.6)30.6 (5.5)  14.1 (3.2)12.6 (2.1)  NA  NA 
Ladlow et al. 202222  H-SH-RC-SC-R  29.9 (5.0)32.6 (6.6)34.4 (7.2)44.3 (7.4)  12.1 (1.7)12.9 (2.5)14.5 (3.9)17.2 (3.0)  43.9 (13.1)  18.2 (5.6) 
Milani et al. 202223  COVID-19 severeCOVID-19 moderateCOVID-19 mild  23.7 (5.9)29.0 (8.9)34.2 (8.9)  NA  30.7 (8.9)  NA 
Mitrani et al. 202224  Post-COVID-19athletes no-MIPost-COVID-19 athletes MI  37.6 (7.9)42.0 (11.3)  NA  NA  NA 
Moulson et al. 202225  Post-COVID-19athletes  44.6 (9.1)  35.7 (11.3)  46.4 (9.6)  36.0 (10.3) 
Di Paco et al. 202226  COVID-19 athletes T0COVID-19 athletes T1  55.3 (5.8)53.5 (5.8)  49.3 (5.0)50.2 (5.8)  NA  NA 
Romero-Ortuno et al. 202227  Did not reach85% maximum HRReached85% maximum HR  29.4 (7.1)29.8 (8.4)  NA  NA  NA 
Schaeffer et al. 202228  FatigueNon-fatigue  19.9 (7.1)24.4 (6.7)  NA  NA  NA 
Singh et al. 202229  Post-COVID-19  16.7 (4.2)  NA  33.5 (12.9)  NA 
Wood et al. 202230  Post COVID-19 cardiac symptoms  28.9 (7.4)  NA  NA  NA 
Alba et al. 202131  PASC  21.0 (8.8)  12.5 (3.2)  19.6 (6.0)  12.9 (4.0) 
Anastasio et al. 202132  COVID-19 athletes  56.5 (12.3)  29.4 (7.2)  60.0 (10.0)  38.8 (8.5) 
Aparisi et al. 202133  No residual dyspneaPersistent dyspnea  23.1 (6.7)18.2 (4.0)  17.6 (3.2)13.2 (5.9)  NA  NA 
Baratto et al. 202134  Post-COVID-19  14.8 (6.1)  NA  22.8 (9.3)  NA 
Barbagelata et al. 202135  With post-COVID-19syndrome  25.8 (8.1)  NA  28.8 (9.6)  NA 
Cassar et al. 202136  COVID-19, 2–3 monthsCOVID-19, 6 months  18.1 (5.6)20.3 (8.7)  9.5 (1.8)10.5 (2.4)  28.6 (8.9)  11.6 (3.4) 
Cavigli et al. 202137  Athletes post-COVID-19  39.0 (6.6)  NA  NA  NA 
Clavario et al. 202138  VO2 below 85%VO2 above 85%  17.4 (4.1)23.4 (6.5)  907.7 (24.5)118.9 (35.2)  NA  NA 
Csulak et al. 202139  COVID-19 swimmers  55.7 (4.3)  NA  56.7 (4.6)  NA 
Debeaumont et al. 202140  General ward survivorsICU survivors  19.8 (6.8)17.2 (6.8)  NA  NA  NA 
Dorelli et al. 202141  Subjects with EVefSubjects with EVin  27.6 (5.2)32.9 (13.1)  18.0 (3.2)21.1 (12.6)  NA  NA 
Fikenzer et al. 202142  COVID-19  4082 (520)  NA  3911 (46)  NA 
Gao et al. 202143  Post-COVID-19  NA  47.6 (6.3)  NA  NA 
Jahn et al. 202144  Normal VO2 max (≥ 80% of predicted)Impaired VO2 max (< 80% of predicted)  NA  14.0 (1.0)14.0 (1.0)  NA  NA 
Komici et al. 202145  COVID-19 athletes  49.7 (3.0)  NA  48.5 (6.4)  NA 
Liu et al. 202146  Fibrosis groupNon-fibrosis group  16.4 (3.6)20.2 (3.7)  14.6 (3.7)16.0 (3.5)  NA  NA 
Mancini et al. 202147  Post-COVID-19  20.3 (7.0)  11.7 (3.2)  NA  NA 
Mazzucco et al. 202148  Pre-COVID19 ergometryPost-COVID-19ergometry  23.9 (11.9)21.6 (7.0)  NA  NA  NA 
Milovancev et al. 202149  Post-COVID-19 athletes  44.1 (3.4)  NA  NA  NA 
Mohr et al. 202150  Post-COVID-19  1512 (232)  NR  NA  NA 
Motiejunaite et al. 202151  DLCO >75%DLCO ⩽75%  19.4 (5.5)16.3 (3.8)  28.7 (13.5)28.0 (7.5)  NA  NA 
Oliynyk et al. 202152  COVID-19 survivors  112.1 (4.9)  NA  281.1 (11.2)  NA 
Pleguezuelos et al. 202153  Post-COVID-19  17.3 (9.8)  8.9 (4.1)  14.3 (5.4)18.8 (12.5)32.3 (15.7)  9.25 (4.1)10.5 (6.1)14.4 (8.1) 
Raman et al. 202154  Post-COVID-19  NA  41.5 (8.5)  NA  47.1 (6.0) 
Rinaldo et al. 202155  NEC (≥85% predicted)REC (<85% predicted)  22.1 (5.5)18.3 (4.9)  62.0 (13.0)48.0 (9.0)  NA  NA 
Skjorten et al. 202156  Post-COVID-19  28.7 (8.4)  52.0 (12.0)  NA  NA 
Szekely et al. 202157  Post-COVID-19  1.6 (0.5)  12.3 (3.6)  2.24 (0.9)  15.4 (5.7) 
Xiao et al. 202158  Post-COVID-19 non-severePost-COVID-19 severe  20.0 (45.8)15.0 (45.4)  14.0 (63.6)14.0 (87.0)  NA  NA 
Vannini et al. 202159  Mild pneumoniaSevere pneumoniaARDS  NA  NA  NA  NA 
Varughese et al. 202160  Post-COVID-19  19.6 (7.4)  NR  29.1 (8.3)  NR 
Vonbank et al. 202161  Post-COVID-19mildPost-COVID-19severe  28.2 (9.0)21.3 (6.4)  NA  29.6 (7.5)  NA 

ARDS, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome; BrP, breathing pattern; DLCO, diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide; C-R, community-recovered; C-S, community-symptomatic; CON, control; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease group; CPET, cardiopulmonary exercise testing; COVID+ athletes, athletes who tested positive to COVID-19; COVID- athletes, athletes who tested negative to COVID-19; COVIDG, COVID-19 group; H-R, hospitalized-recovered; H-S, hospitalized-symptomatic; HDG: heart disease group; HG: healthy group; MI: Myocardial involvement; NA: not analyzed; NR: not registered; NEC, Normal exercise capacity; No-Mi, No myocardial involvement;; REC, reduced exercise capacity; SD, standard deviation; T0, before the sport season; T1. immediately after return to COVID negative; VO2 AT, oxygen consumption at anaerobic threshold; VO2 peak: peak oxygen consumption in mL/min/kg or mL/min.

When pooling all studies together that compared COVID-19 survivors to non-COVID-19 controls (independent of the unit of measure of VO2 peak), we observed a significantly higher VO2 peak in the non-COVID-19 control group compared to COVID-19 survivors (SMD=1.1, 95% CI: 0.6, 1.6; 18 studies; N = 1491), with considerable heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 94%, P < 0.001), (Fig. 1). Re-expressing the SMD to VO2 peak values in mL/min/kg showed an MD of 7.7 mL/min/kg, 95% CI: 4.3, 11.4.

Fig. 1.

VO2 peak-COVID-19 survivors vs Control.

(0.39MB).

In the 15 studies with 16 arms (1123 participants) that reported VO2 peak values in mL/min/kg, non-COVID-19 controls showed higher VO2 peak values than COVID-19 survivors (MD=5.9 mL/min/kg, 95% CI: 3.8, 8.0; N = 905; I2 = 85%, P < 0.001) (Fig. 2). In a subgroup analysis, considering the previous physical activity status (athletes vs non-athletes), the meta-analysis showed a significantly higher VO2 peak for non-athletes non-COVID-19 survivors compared with non-athletes COVID-19 survivors (MD=7.6 mL/min/kg, 95% CI: 5.3, 10.1; 10 studies; N = 929; I2 = 83%, P < 0.001). When we performed a subgroup analysis with studies of athletes non-COVID-19 survivors compared with athletes COVID-19 survivors the meta-analyses showed a non-significant difference in VO2 peak (MD=2.4 mL/min/kg, 95% CI: −2.2, 7.0; 5 studies; N = 194; I2 = 84%, P = 0.31) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.

VO2 peak values in mL/min/kg-COVID-19 survivors vs Control.

(0.75MB).

In another subgroup analysis, considering the disease severity (severe vs non-severe COVID-19), the meta-analyses showed a significantly higher VO2 peak for non-severe COVID-19 group compared with severe COVID-19 group (MD=4.97 mL/min/kg, 95% CI: 1.8, 8.1; 6 studies; N = 368; I2 = 86%, P < 0.002) (Fig. 3a). When we performed a subgroup analysis with studies considering the presence of dyspnea in COVID-19 survivors (dyspnea vs non-dyspnea), the meta-analysis showed a significantly higher VO2 peak for participants in the non-dyspnea COVID-19 group compared with dyspnea COVID-19 group (MD=6.0 mL/min/kg, 95% CI: 4.1, 7.8; 3 studies; N = 245; I2 = 35%, P < 0.001) (Fig. 3b). In another subgroup analysis, considering the exercise capacity in COVID-19 survivors (normal vs reduced exercise capacity) the meta-analysis showed a significantly higher VO2 peak for participants in the normal exercise capacity COVID-19 group compared with reduced exercise capacity COVID-19 group (MD=5.8 mL/min/kg, 95% CI: 4.9, 6.6; 6 studies; N = 526; I2 = 0%; P < 0.001) (Fig. 3c).

Fig. 3.

VO2 peak values in mL/min/kg.

(0.67MB).

Across 8 studies evaluating VO2 AT that compared COVID-19 survivors to non-COVID-19 controls we found a significantly higher VO2 AT in non-COVID-19 controls than in COVID-19 survivors (MD=2.5 mL/min/kg, 95% CI: 1.3, 3.7), with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 49%, N = 88, p < 0.001) (Fig. 3). In a subgroup analysis, considering the previous physical activity status (athletes vs non-athletes), the meta-analysis showed a significantly higher VO2 AT for non-athletes non-COVID-19 controls compared with non-athletes COVID-19 survivors (MD = 2.2 mL/min/kg, 95% CI: 1.3, 3.1; 6 studies; N = 399; I2 = 24%, P < 0.001). When we performed a subgroup analysis with studies of athletes non-COVID-19 controls compared with athletes COVID-19 survivors the meta-analyses showed a non-significant difference in VO2 AT (MD = 4.9 mL/min/kg, 95% CI: −4.9, 14.7; 2 studies; N = 89; I2 = 83%, P = 0.32). In addition, considering the disease severity (severe vs non-severe COVID-19), the meta-analysis showed a significantly higher VO2 AT for non-severe COVID-19 group compared with severe COVID-19 group (MD = 2.2 mL/min/kg, 95% CI: 0.8, 3.6; 3 studies; N = 210; I2 = 28%, P < 0.002).

Across 7 studies evaluating % of predicted VO2 peak, we found significantly higher % of predicted VO2 peak in non-COVID-19 controls than COVID-19 survivors (MD = 19%, 95% CI: 6.4, 31.4; N = 380), with considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 86%, p < 0.001). In a subgroup analysis, considering the previous physical activity status (athletes vs non-athletes), the meta-analysis showed a significantly higher % of predicted VO2 peak for non-athletes non-COVID-19 controls compared with non-athletes COVID-19 survivors (MD = 21.7 mL/min/kg, 95% CI: 7.3, 36.1; 6 studies; N = 399; I2 = 88%, P < 0.003). When we performed a subgroup analysis with studies of athletes non-COVID-19 controls compared with athletes COVID-19 survivors the analysis showed a non-significant difference in % of predicted VO2 peak (MD = 4.0 mL/min/kg, 95% CI: −10.6, 18.6; 1 studies; N = 89, P = 0.56).

Meta-regression analyses

Two factors (age and time post-COVID-19) were found to be significant (P < 0.05) and two factors (body mass index and % female) were found to be non-significant (P > 0.05) predictors in univariable analysis. Age and post-COVID-19 time were significantly associated with VO2 peak reduction in COVID-19 survivors compared to non-COVID-19 controls. Higher age was associated with a larger magnitude of COVID-19 survivors–control mean difference, that is, a mean reduction in VO2 peak of −0.20 mL/min/kg (95% CI: −0.34, −0.01; I2 = 80.2%) for each one-year increase in mean age across studies. Higher mean post-COVID-19 time across studies was associated with a larger magnitude of COVID-19 survivors versus non-COVID-19 controls mean difference, that is, a mean reduction in VO2 peak of −1.1 mL/min/kg (95% CI: −2.2, −1.0; I2 = 81.3%) for each one month increase in mean time post-COVID-19 across studies (Supplementary material – Figure S2).

Assessment of small study bias

For studies reporting VO2 peak there was no evidence of funnel plot asymmetry (Supplementary material - Fig. S3) and the Egger test was non-significant (P = 0.10).

Sensitivity analysis

To explore the robustness of our findings, we repeated the main analysis by including only high-quality studies (NOS score ≥7). In 11 high-quality studies (1125 participants), we observed a significantly higher VO2 peak in the non-COVID-19 control group compared to COVID-19 survivors (SMD= 1.4, 95% CI 0.7, 2.2; I2 = 96%, P < 0.0001).

In another sensitivity analysis we explored the influence of study design (cohort vs cross-sectional) on heterogeneity, and effect estimates of meta-analyses. We separated the meta-analyses for cohort studies and cross-sectional studies. As already reported before when pooling all 18 studies together that compared COVID-19 survivors to non-COVID-19 controls (independent of the unit of measure of VO2 peak), we observed a significantly higher VO2 peak in the non-COVID-19 control group compared to COVID-19 survivors (SMD = 1.1, 95% CI: 0.6, 1.6; N = 1491; I2 = 94%). Re-expressing the SMD to VO2 peak values in mL/min/kg showed an MD of 7.7 mL/min/kg (95% CI: 4.3, 11.4). In the 12 cohort studies (1015 participants), non-COVID-19 controls showed higher VO2 peak values than COVID-19 survivors (SMD=1.4 mL/min/kg, 95% CI: 0.7, 2.1; I2 = 95%). Re-expressing the SMD to VO2 peak values in mL/min/kg showed an MD of 9.8 mL/min/kg, 95% CI: 4.7, 14.2). In the 6 cross-sectional studies (476 participants), non-COVID-19 controls showed higher VO2 peak values than COVID-19 survivors (SMD = 0.8 mL/min/kg, 95% CI: 0.2, 1.4; I2 = 85%). Re-expressing the SMD to VO2 peak values in mL/min/kg showed an MD of 4.8 mL/min/kg, (95% CI: 1.2, 8.1).

As already reported before when pooling all studies (cohort and cross-sectional) together, we observed a significantly higher VO2 peak in the non-COVID-19 control group compared to COVID-19 survivors (MD = 5.4, 95% CI: 2.3, 8.4; I2 = 88%; 13 studies). In the 8 cohort studies (539 participants), non-COVID-19 controls showed higher VO2 peak values than COVID-19 survivors (MD=4.7 mL/min/kg, 95% CI: 0.9, 8.5; I2 = 88%). In the 8 cross-sectional studies (316 participants), non-COVID-19 controls showed higher VO2 peak values than COVID-19 survivors (MD=6.4 mL/min/kg, 95% CI: 0.7, 12.2; N = 905, I2 = 89%).

Across 8 studies evaluating VO2 AT that compared COVID-19 survivors to non-COVID-19 controls we found a significantly higher VO2 AT in non-COVID-19 controls than in COVID-19 survivors (MD = 2.5 mL/min/kg, 95% CI: 1.3, 3.7; I2 = 49%). In the 6 cohort studies (432 participants), non-COVID-19 controls showed higher VO2 AT values than COVID-19 survivors (MD = 2.0 mL/min/kg, 95% CI: 1.2, 2.8; I2 = 9%). In the 8 cross-sectional studies (56 participants), non-COVID-19 controls showed higher VO2 peak values than COVID-19 survivors (MD = 7.0 mL/min/kg, 95% CI: 2.8, 11.9; I2 = 41%).

Discussion

Overall, the meta-analyses demonstrate that absolute and predicted VO2 peak and VO2 AT may be impaired in COVID-19 survivors. Our analyses also showed that lower VO2 peak was associated with the disease severity, presence of dyspnea, and reduced exercise capacity. The MD in VO2 peak shows inverse linear associations with age and time post-COVID-19 between COVID-19 survivors and non-COVID-19 controls. Despite the significant difference on most outcomes between COVID-19 survivors and non-COVID-19 controls, the high risk of bias among included studies and substantial heterogeneity found in the meta-analyses, can affect the certainty of the evidence generated by this review.

In our analyses, we included VO2 peak, and VO2 AT, important outcomes associated with prognosis in patients with cardiopulmonary conditions. Thus, these findings (a MD above 7 mL/min/kg) should be viewed as clinically relevant, considering that decrement in cardiorespiratory fitness is associated with poor prognosis and high mortality in patients with chronic conditions.62–67 A cardiorespiratory fitness level <5 METs (1MET = 3.5 mL/min/kg) in adults is associated with high risk for mortality; cardiorespiratory fitness levels >8 to 10 METs are associated with increased survival. Additionally, each 5 mL/min/kg lower level of cardiorespiratory fitness corresponded to a 56% higher odds of cardiovascular risk factors.2 Thus, the information provided in our analysis may assist practitioners in the process of diagnosing and rehabilitating COVID-19 survivors.

Reduced cardiorespiratory fitness is the central hallmark of COVID-19 survivors. However, such abnormality is also common in different comorbidities, such as heart failure, making it difficult to differentiate the causes of impaired cardiorespiratory fitness, particularly in COVID-19 survivors. Whichever the etiology of reduced VO2 peak in COVID-19 survivors, the underlying mechanism(s) remain unclear. However, exercise performance limiting factors can be related to impaired ventilation, impaired circulation, deconditioning, or peripheral conditions.55

In healthy people at sea level, lung function does not limit VO2 peak. However, in COVID-19 patients, impaired gas perfusion and impaired lung function, because of the lung infection, may contribute to the decrease in maximal cardiorespiratory fitness. A previous meta-analysis showed a prevalence of 14% in low total lung capacity, 12% in low forced vital capacity, and 7% in low forced expiratory volume in the first second.68 On the other hand, in healthy people, peak cardiac output does limit VO2 peak. Cardiac output is represented by stroke volume x heart rate. Although inconclusive, it is possible that chronotropic incompetence may contribute to VO2 peak impairment, especially in the first few months of post-COVID-19 infection.69 Bed restriction and deconditioning (low O2 extraction, mitochondrial dysfunction, and muscles loss) can also be related to low VO2 peak in healthy people and in COVID-19 survivors.69

This systematic review provides important information to clinical practice and research, as we warn to the magnitude of low cardiorespiratory fitness of COVID-19 survivors. We also reinforce the need of rehabilitation protocols focused on cardiorespiratory fitness of this population, respecting the condition of each patient and the adaptation to the exercise protocol. In a recent meta-analysis, Pouliopoulou et al70 reported that rehabilitation interventions were associated with improvements in functional exercise capacity. These improvements had a 99% posterior probability of superiority when compared with current standard care.70 Chen et al,71 investigated the possible benefits of inspiratory muscle training on mechanical and clinical outcomes. They reported that significant improvements were found in change from baseline of VO2 max (MD: 4.54, 95% CI: 1.8, 7.3). Thus, physical rehabilitation interventions may be safe, feasible, and effective in COVID-19 patients discharged from the hospital and can improve a variety of clinically relevant outcomes.72

Considering that VO2 peak shows inverse linear associations with age and time post-COVID-19, special attention seems to be worth to be given to old people and to the timing to start the rehabilitation program. Future clinical trials should investigate if early rehabilitation can improve cardiorespiratory fitness more efficiently in these populations. Moreover, our findings reinforce the potential beneficial effect of good physical conditioning to mitigate loss in cardiorespiratory fitness post-COVID-19.

Limitations in the present systematic review need attention. Results were limited by heterogeneity among studies, insufficient standardization, and absence of control for confounders in individual studies. It is important to highlight the considerable heterogeneity found in the meta-analyses. These aspects are important and may question the certainty of the evidence generated by this review. In addition to the inclusion of different study designs (cohort and cross-sectional), clinical characteristics, such as (hospitalization, disease severity), type of population (athletes and non-athletes), and patient profile (symptomatic and asymptomatic) may have contributed to the high heterogeneity. Ultimately, sub-group and meta-regression analyses should be considered exploratory and not as proof of causality. Thus, we recommend caution in interpreting the results. On the other hand, a strength of this systematic review is the rigorous systematic review methodology that was used which was key to dealing effectively with a very heterogeneous literature. Additionally, we reported significant and non-significant comparisons, which allows a suggestion of possible determinants of VO2 peak in COVID-19 survivors. It is worth noting that despite the inclusion of prospective and cross-sectional studies, according to the sensitivity analysis performed, the reduction in VO2 was not influenced by the study design (cohort or cross-sectional).

Conclusion

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that cardiorespiratory fitness may be impaired in COVID-19 survivors, especially for those with severe disease, presence of dyspnea, and reduced exercise capacity, compared to non- COVID-19 controls. Furthermore, the degree of reduction of VO2 peak may be inversely associated with age and time post-COVID-19. Caution is important in interpreting the results due to high heterogeneity in the meta-analyses and high risk of bias among included studies.

Funding

None

References
[1]
G. Raghuveer, J. Hartz, D.R. Lubans, et al.
Cardiorespiratory fitness in youth: an important marker of health: a scientific statement from the American heart association.
Circulation, 142 (2020), pp. e101-e118
[2]
R. Ross, S.N. Blair, R. Arena, et al.
Importance of assessing cardiorespiratory fitness in clinical practice: a case for fitness as a clinical vital sign: a scientific statement From the American heart association.
Circulation, 134 (2016), pp. e653-e699
[3]
S. Kodama, K. Saito, S. Tanaka, et al.
Cardiorespiratory fitness as a quantitative predictor of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events in healthy men and women: a meta-analysis.
JAMA, 301 (2009), pp. 2024-2035
[4]
Y. Ezzatvar, M. Izquierdo, J. Núñez, J. Calatayud, R. Ramírez-Vélez, A. García-Hermoso.
Cardiorespiratory fitness measured with cardiopulmonary exercise testing and mortality in patients with cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Sport Health Sci, 10 (2021), pp. 609-619
[5]
R. Arena, M.A. Faghy.
Cardiopulmonary exercise testing as a vital sign in patients recovering from COVID-19.
Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther, 19 (2021), pp. 877-880
[6]
K. de Oliveira Almeida, I.G. Nogueira Alves, R.S. de Queiroz, et al.
A systematic review on physical function, activities of daily living and health-related quality of life in COVID-19 survivors.
[7]
M. Rahmati, R. Udeh, D.K. Yon, et al.
A systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term sequelae of COVID-19 2-year after SARS-CoV-2 infection: a call to action for neurological, physical, and psychological sciences.
J Med Virol, 95 (2023), pp. e28852
[8]
P. Clavario, V. De Marzo, R. Lotti, et al.
Cardiopulmonary exercise testing in COVID-19 patients at 3 months follow-up.
Int J Cardiol, 340 (2021), pp. 113-118
[9]
J.P.T. Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler, et al.
Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021).
[10]
M.J. Page, J.E. McKenzie, P.M. Bossuyt, et al.
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.
BMJ, 372 (2021), pp. n71
[11]
Wells G.A., Shea B., O'Connell D., et al The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. 2012. Available at:http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm.
[12]
Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.4.
The Cochrane Collaboration, (2020),
[13]
RStudio Team.
RStudio: Integrated Development For R. RStudio.
[14]
P. Ambrosino, P. Parrella, R. Formisano, et al.
Cardiopulmonary exercise performance and endothelial function in convalescent COVID-19 patients.
J Clin Med, 11 (2022), pp. 1452
[15]
R.B. Baptista, T. d'Humières, F. Schlemmer, et al.
Identification of factors impairing exercise capacity after severe COVID-19 pulmonary infection: a 3-month follow-up of prospective COVulnerability cohort.
[16]
J.T. Brown, A. Saigal, N. Karia, et al.
Ongoing exercise intolerance following COVID-19: a magnetic resonance-augmented cardiopulmonary exercise test study.
J Am Heart Assoc, 11 (2022),
[17]
B.T. Costello, R.E. Climie, L. Wright, et al.
Athletes with mild COVID-19 illness demonstrate subtle imaging abnormalities without exercise impairment or arrhythmias.
Eur J Prev Cardiol, 29 (2022), pp. e220-e223
[18]
G. Evers, A.B. Schulze, I. Osiaevi, et al.
Sustained impairment in cardiopulmonary exercise capacity testing in patients after COVID-19: a single center experience.
Can Respir J, 2022 (2022),
[19]
A. Gruenewaldt, E. Nylander, K. Hedman.
Classification and occurrence of an abnormal breathing pattern during cardiopulmonary exercise testing in subjects with persistent symptoms following COVID-19 disease.
Physiol Rep, 10 (2022), pp. e15197
[20]
M.R. Lacavalerie, S. Pierre-Francois, M. Agossou, et al.
Obese patients with long COVID-19 display abnormal hyperventilatory response and impaired gas exchange at peak exercise.
Future Cardiol, 18 (2022), pp. 577-584
[21]
P. Ladlow, O. O’Sullivan, A.N. Bennett, et al.
The effect of medium-term recovery status after COVID-19 illness on cardiopulmonary exercise capacity in a physically active adult population.
J Appl Physiol (1985), 132 (2022), pp. 1525-1535
[22]
P. Ladlow, O. O'Sullivan, A. Houston, et al.
Dysautonomia following COVID-19 is not associated with subjective limitations or symptoms but is associated with objective functional limitations.
Heart Rhythm, 19 (2022), pp. 613-620
[23]
M. Milani, J.G.P.O. Milani, G.F.B. Cipriano, L.P. Cahalin, R. Stein, G. Cipriano Junior.
Cardiopulmonary exercise testing in post-COVID-19 patients: where does exercise intolerance come from?.
Eur J Prev Cardiol, 29 (2022),
[24]
R.D. Mitrani, J. Alfadhli, M.H. Lowery, et al.
Utility of exercise testing to assess athletes for post COVID-19 myocarditis.
[25]
N. Moulson, S.K. Gustus, C. Scirica, et al.
Diagnostic evaluation and cardiopulmonary exercise test findings in young athletes with persistent symptoms following COVID-19.
[26]
A. Di Paco, S. Mazzoleni, M. Vitacca, L. Comini, N. Ambrosino.
Lung function and ventilatory response to exercise in asymptomatic elite soccer players positive for COVID-19.
Pulmonology, 28 (2022), pp. 148-151
[27]
R. Romero-Ortuno, G. Jennings, F. Xue, E. Duggan, J. Gormley, A. Monaghan.
Predictors of submaximal exercise test attainment in adults reporting long COVID Symptoms.
J Clin Med, 11 (2022), pp. 2376
[28]
M.R. Schaeffer, J. Cowan, K.M. Milne, et al.
Cardiorespiratory physiology, exertional symptoms, and psychological burden in post-COVID-19 fatigue.
Respir Physiol Neurobiol, 302 (2022),
[29]
I. Singh, P. Joseph, P.M. Heerdt, et al.
Persistent exertional intolerance after COVID-19: insights from invasive cardiopulmonary exercise testing.
[30]
G. Wood, T.S. Kirkevang, J. Agergaard, et al.
Cardiac performance and cardiopulmonary fitness after infection with SARS-CoV-2.
Front Cardiovasc Med, 9 (2022),
[31]
G.A. Alba, D.R. Ziehr, J.N. Rouvina, et al.
Exercise performance in patients with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to patients with unexplained dyspnea.
[32]
F. Anastasio, T. LA Macchia, G. Rossi, et al.
Mid-term impact of mild-moderate COVID-19 on cardiorespiratory fitness in élite athletes.
J Sports Med Phys Fitness, (2021),
[33]
Á. Aparisi, C. Ybarra-Falcón, M. García-Gómez, et al.
Exercise ventilatory inefficiency in post-COVID-19 syndrome: insights from a prospective evaluation.
J Clin Med, 10 (2021), pp. 2591
[34]
C. Baratto, S. Caravita, A. Faini, et al.
Impact of COVID-19 on exercise pathophysiology: a combined cardiopulmonary and echocardiographic exercise study.
J Appl Physiol (1985), 130 (2021), pp. 1470-1478
[35]
L. Barbagelata, W. Masson, D. Iglesias, et al.
Cardiopulmonary exercise testing in patients with post-COVID-19 syndrome.
[36]
M.P. Cassar, E.M. Tunnicliffe, N. Petousi, et al.
Symptom persistence despite improvement in cardiopulmonary health - insights from longitudinal CMR, CPET and lung function testing post-COVID-19.
[37]
L. Cavigli, F. Frascaro, F. Turchini, et al.
A prospective study on the consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the heart of young adult competitive athletes: implications for a safe return-to-play.
Int J Cardiol, 336 (2021), pp. 130-136
[38]
P. Clavario, V. De Marzo, R. Lotti, et al.
Cardiopulmonary exercise testing in COVID-19 patients at 3 months follow-up.
Int J Cardiol, 340 (2021), pp. 113-118
[39]
E. Csulak, Á. Petrov, T. Kováts, et al.
The Impact of COVID-19 on the preparation for the Tokyo olympics: a comprehensive performance assessment of top swimmers.
Int J Environ Res Public Health, 18 (2021), pp. 9770
[40]
D. Debeaumont, F. Boujibar, E. Ferrand-Devouge, et al.
Cardiopulmonary exercise testing to assess persistent symptoms at 6 months in people with COVID-19 who survived hospitalization: a pilot study.
[41]
G. Dorelli, M. Braggio, D. Gabbiani, et al.
Importance of Cardiopulmonary exercise testing amongst subjects recovering from COVID-19.
Diagnostics (Basel), 11 (2021), pp. 507
[42]
S. Fikenzer, A. Kogel, C. Pietsch, et al.
SARS-CoV2 infection: functional and morphological cardiopulmonary changes in elite handball players.
[43]
Y. Gao, R. Chen, Q. Geng, et al.
Cardiopulmonary exercise testing might be helpful for interpretation of impaired pulmonary function in recovered COVID-19 patients.
[44]
K. Jahn, M. Sava, G. Sommer, et al.
Exercise capacity impairment after COVID-19 pneumonia is mainly caused by deconditioning.
[45]
K. Komici, A. Bianco, F. Perrotta, et al.
Clinical characteristics, exercise capacity and pulmonary function in post-COVID-19 competitive athletes.
J Clin Med, 10 (2021), pp. 3053
[46]
M. Liu, F. Lv, Y. Huang, K. Xiao.
Follow-up study of the chest CT characteristics of COVID-19 survivors seven months after recovery.
Front Med (Lausanne), 8 (2021),
[47]
D.M. Mancini, D.L. Brunjes, A. Lala, M.G. Trivieri, J.P. Contreras, B.H. Natelson.
Use of cardiopulmonary stress testing for patients with unexplained dyspnea post-coronavirus disease.
JACC Heart Fail, 9 (2021), pp. 927-937
[48]
G.A. Mazzucco, R. Torres-Castro, L. Intelangelo, B. Vila Ortiz, A Lista-Paz.
Does COVID-19 affect the exercise capacity of non-hospitalized patients?.
Cureus, 13 (2021), pp. e18135
[49]
A. Milovancev, J. Avakumovic, N. Lakicevic, et al.
Cardiorespiratory fitness in volleyball athletes following a COVID-19 infection: a cross-sectional study.
Int J Environ Res Public Health, 18 (2021), pp. 4059
[50]
A. Mohr, L. Dannerbeck, T.J. Lange, et al.
Cardiopulmonary exercise pattern in patients with persistent dyspnoea after recovery from COVID-19.
Multidiscip Respir Med, 16 (2021), pp. 732
[51]
J. Motiejunaite, P. Balagny, F. Arnoult, et al.
Hyperventilation as one of the mechanisms of persistent dyspnoea in SARS-CoV-2 survivors.
[52]
O.V. Oliynyk, M. Rorat, W. Barg.
Oxygen metabolism markers as predictors of mortality in severe COVID-19.
Int J Infect Dis, 103 (2021 Feb), pp. 452-456
[53]
E. Pleguezuelos, A. Del Carmen, G. Llorensi, et al.
Severe loss of mechanical efficiency in COVID-19 patients.
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle, 12 (2021), pp. 1056-1063
[54]
B. Raman, M.P. Cassar, E.M. Tunnicliffe, et al.
Medium-term effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection on multiple vital organs, exercise capacity, cognition, quality of life and mental health, post-hospital discharge.
EClinicalMedicine., 31 (2021),
[55]
R.F. Rinaldo, M. Mondoni, E.M. Parazzini, et al.
Deconditioning as main mechanism of impaired exercise response in COVID-19 survivors.
[56]
I. Skjørten, O.A.W. Ankerstjerne, D. Trebinjac, et al.
Cardiopulmonary exercise capacity and limitations 3 months after COVID-19 hospitalisation.
[57]
Y. Szekely, Y. Lichter, S. Sadon, et al.
Cardiorespiratory abnormalities in patients recovering from coronavirus disease 2019.
J Am Soc Echocardiogr, 34 (2021), pp. 1273-1284
[58]
K. Xiao, H. Yang, B. Liu, et al.
Antibodies can last for more than 1 year after SARS-CoV-2 infection: a follow-up study from survivors of COVID-19.
Front Med (Lausanne), 8 (2021),
[59]
L. Vannini, A. Quijada-Fumero, M.P.R. Martín, N.C. Pina, J.S.H. Afonso.
Cardiopulmonary exercise test with stress echocardiography in COVID-19 survivors at 6 months follow-up.
Eur J Intern Med, 94 (2021), pp. 101-104
[60]
R.A. Varughese, G.Y. Lam, A. Brotto, et al.
Reduced exercise tolerance in long-COVID patients.
[61]
K. Vonbank, A. Lehmann, D. Bernitzky, et al.
Predictors of prolonged cardiopulmonary exercise impairment after COVID-19 infection: a prospective observational study.
Front Med (Lausanne), 8 (2021),
[62]
L. Barbagelata, W. Masson, I. Bluro, M. Lobo, D. Iglesias, G. Molinero.
Prognostic role of cardiopulmonary exercise testing in pulmonary hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
[63]
B. Stubbe, T. Ittermann, A. Grieger, C. Walther, S. Gläser, R Ewert.
Value of cardiopulmonary exercise testing in prognostic assessment of patients with interstitial lung diseases.
J Clin Med, 11 (2022), pp. 1609
[64]
C.A. Wadey, M.E. Weston, D.M. Dorobantu, et al.
The role of cardiopulmonary exercise testing in predicting mortality and morbidity in people with congenital heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Eur J Prev Cardiol, 29 (2022), pp. 513-533
[65]
C. da Luz Goulart, M.R. Oliveira, F.A. Sendín, R.G. Mendes, R. Arena, A. Borghi-Silva.
Prognostic value of key variables from cardiopulmonary exercise testing in patients with COPD: 42-month follow-up.
[66]
R. Arena, J. Myers, J. Abella.
Defining the optimal prognostic window for cardiopulmonary exercise testing in patients with heart failure.
Circ Heart Fail, 3 (2010), pp. 405-411
[67]
T. Sato, A. Yoshihisa, Y. Kanno, et al.
Cardiopulmonary exercise testing as prognostic indicators: comparisons among heart failure patients with reduced, mid-range and preserved ejection fraction.
Eur J Prev Cardiol, 24 (2017), pp. 1979-1987
[68]
Q. Long, J. Li, X. Hu, Y. Bai, Y. Zheng, Z. Gao.
Follow-ups on persistent symptoms and pulmonary function among post-acute COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Front Med (Lausanne), 8 (2021),
[69]
F. Schwendinger, R. Knaier, T. Radtke, A. Schmidt-Trucksäss.
Low cardiorespiratory fitness post-COVID-19: a narrative review.
Sports Med, 53 (2023), pp. 51-74
[70]
D.V. Pouliopoulou, J.C. Macdermid, E. Saunders, et al.
Rehabilitation interventions for physical capacity and quality of life in adults with post-COVID-19 condition: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
[71]
Y. Chen, X. Liu, Z. Tong.
Can inspiratory muscle training benefit patients with COVID-19? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Med Virol, 95 (2023), pp. e28956
[72]
M. Rahmati, M. Molanouri Shamsi, W. Woo, et al.
Effects of physical rehabilitation interventions in COVID-19 patients following discharge from hospital: a systematic review.
J Integr Med, 21 (2023), pp. 149-158

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42022325991

Copyright © 2024. Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia
Download PDF
Idiomas
Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy
Article options
Tools
Supplemental materials
en pt
Cookies policy Política de cookies
To improve our services and products, we use "cookies" (own or third parties authorized) to show advertising related to client preferences through the analyses of navigation customer behavior. Continuing navigation will be considered as acceptance of this use. You can change the settings or obtain more information by clicking here. Utilizamos cookies próprios e de terceiros para melhorar nossos serviços e mostrar publicidade relacionada às suas preferências, analisando seus hábitos de navegação. Se continuar a navegar, consideramos que aceita o seu uso. Você pode alterar a configuração ou obter mais informações aqui.