Search

To minimize transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the novel coronavirus responsible for coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization recommend wearing face masks in public. Some have expressed concern that these may affect the cardiopulmonary system by increasing the work of breathing, altering pulmonary gas exchange and increasing dyspnea, especially during physical activity. These concerns have been derived largely from studies evaluating devices intentionally designed to severely affect respiratory mechanics and gas exchange. We review the literature on the effects of various face masks and respirators on the respiratory system during physical activity using data from several models: cloth face coverings and surgical masks, N95 respirators, industrial respirators, and applied highly resistive or high–dead space respiratory loads. Overall, the available data suggest that although dyspnea may be increased and alter perceived effort with activity, the effects on work of breathing, blood gases, and other physiological parameters imposed by face masks during physical activity are small, often too small to be detected, even during very heavy exercise. There is no current evidence to support sex-based or age-based differences in the physiological responses to exercise while wearing a face mask. Although the available data suggest that negative effects of using cloth or surgical face masks during physical activity in healthy individuals are negligible and unlikely to impact exercise tolerance significantly, for some individuals with severe cardiopulmonary disease, any added resistance and/or minor changes in blood gases may evoke considerably more dyspnea and, thus, affect exercise capacity.

The ongoing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has been unprecedented on many levels, not least of which are the challenges in understanding the pathophysiology of these new critically ill patients. One widely reported phenomenon is that of a profoundly hypoxemic patient with minimal to no dyspnea out of proportion to the extent of radiographic abnormality and change in lung compliance. This apparently unique presentation, sometimes called "happy hypoxemia or hypoxia" but better described as "silent hypoxemia," has led to the speculation of underlying pathophysiological differences between COVID-19 lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from other causes. We explore three proposed distinctive features of COVID-19 that likely bear on the genesis of silent hypoxemia, including differences in lung compliance, pulmonary vascular responses to hypoxia, and nervous system sensing and response to hypoxemia. In the context of known principles of respiratory physiology and neurobiology, we discuss whether these particular findings are due to direct viral effects or, equally plausible, are within the spectrum of typical ARDS pathophysiology and the wide range of hypoxic ventilatory and pulmonary vascular responses and dyspnea perception in healthy people. Comparisons between lung injury patterns in COVID-19 and other causes of ARDS are clouded by the extent and severity of this pandemic, which may underlie the description of "new" phenotypes, although our ability to confirm these phenotypes by more invasive and longitudinal studies is limited. However, given the uncertainty about anything unique in the pathophysiology of COVID-19 lung injury, there are no compelling pathophysiological reasons at present to support a therapeutic approach for these patients that is different from the proven standards of care in ARDS.

During the ongoing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, reports in social media and the lay press indicate that a subset of patients are presenting with severe hypoxemia in the absence of dyspnea, a problem unofficially referred to as "silent hypoxemia." To decrease the risk of complications in such patients, one proposed solution has been to have those diagnosed with COVID-19 but not sick enough to warrant admission monitor their arterial oxygenation by pulse oximetry at home and present for care when they show evidence of hypoxemia. Though the ease of use and low cost of pulse oximetry makes this an attractive option for identifying problems at an early stage, there are important considerations with pulse oximetry about which patients and providers may not be aware that can interfere with successful implementation of such monitoring programs. Only a few independent studies have examined the performance of pocket oximeters and smart phone-based systems, but the limited available data raise questions about their accuracy, particularly as saturation falls below 90%. There are also multiple sources of error in pulse oximetry that must be accounted for, including rapid fluctuations in measurements when the arterial oxygen pressure/tension falls on the steep portion of the dissociation curve, data acquisition problems when pulsatile blood flow is diminished, accuracy in the setting of severe hypoxemia, dyshemoglobinemias, and other problems. Recognition of these issues and careful counseling of patients about the proper means for measuring their oxygen saturation and when to seek assistance can help ensure successful implementation of needed monitoring programs.

Acetazolamide is a carbonic anhydrase (CA) inhibitor sometimes used as a respiratory stimulant for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with the goal of improving oxygenation, reducing carbon dioxide retention, and aiding liberation from mechanical ventilation and/or attempting to correct a metabolic alkalosis. However, the net effect of CA inhibition is multifactorial and complex, because CA is inhibited in many tissues that may negatively affect the patient with lung disease. The full impact of acetazolamide and other CA inhibitors depends critically on dosing, age, and pulmonary, renal, hepatic, hematological, and respiratory muscle function and reserves. This review examines the literature and indications for acetazolamide use in patients with COPD dating back to its initial release 6 decades ago. There are very few studies specifically designed to address the population with severe COPD, as such patients were frequently excluded from trials. We therefore discuss the complexity of CA inhibition and its potential benefits and dangers and describe ways in which the pathophysiology of patients with severe COPD puts them at considerable risk for serious adverse consequences. We offer guidance on the careful and rational use of acetazolamide in patients with respiratory disorders.