Background: Ventilation with lower positive end–expiratory pressure (PEEP) may cause loss of lung aeration in critically ill invasively ventilated patients. This study investigated whether a systematic lung ultrasound (LUS) scoring system can detect such changes in lung aeration in a study comparing lower versus higher PEEP in invasively ventilated patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods: Single center substudy of a national, multicenter, randomized clinical trial comparing lower versus higher PEEP ventilation strategy. Fifty–seven patients underwent a systematic 12–region LUS examination within 12 h and between 24 to 48 h after start of invasive ventilation, according to randomization. The primary endpoint was a change in the global LUS aeration score, where a higher value indicates a greater impairment in lung aeration. Results: Thirty–three and twenty–four patients received ventilation with lower PEEP (median PEEP 1 (0–5) cm H2O) or higher PEEP (median PEEP 8 (8–8) cm H2O), respectively. Median global LUS aeration scores within 12 h and between 24 and 48 h were 8 (4 to 14) and 9 (4 to 12) (difference 1 (–2 to 3)) in the lower PEEP group, and 7 (2–11) and 6 (1–12) (difference 0 (–2 to 3)) in the higher PEEP group. Neither differences in changes over time nor differences in absolute scores reached statistical significance. Conclusions: In this substudy of a randomized clinical trial comparing lower PEEP versus higher PEEP in patients without ARDS, LUS was unable to detect changes in lung aeration.
Introduction: The optimal pre-participation screening strategy to identify athletes at risk for exercise-induced cardiovascular events is unknown. We therefore aimed to compare the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) pre-participation screening strategies against extensive cardiovascular evaluations in identifying high-risk individuals among 35.50- year-old apparently healthy men. Methods: We applied ACSM and ESC pre-participation screenings to 25 men participating in a study on first-time marathon running. We compared screening outcomes against medical history, physical examination, electrocardiography, blood tests, echocardiography, cardiopulmonary exercise testing, and magnetic resonance imaging. Results: ACSM screening classified all participants as "medical clearance not necessary."ESC screening classified two participants as "high-risk."Extensive cardiovascular evaluations revealed ≥1 minor abnormality and/or cardiovascular condition in 17 participants, including three subjects with mitral regurgitation and one with a small atrial septal defect. Eleven participants had dyslipidaemia, six had hypertension, and two had premature atherosclerosis. Ultimately, three (12%) subjects had a serious cardiovascular condition warranting sports restrictions: aortic aneurysm, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), and myocardial fibrosis post-myocarditis. Of these three participants, only one had been identified as "high-risk"by the ESC screening (for dyslipidaemia, not HCM) and none by the ACSM screening. Conclusion: Numerous occult cardiovascular conditions are missed when applying current ACSM/ ESC screening strategies to apparently healthy middle-aged men engaging in their first high-intensity endurance sports event.
BACKGROUND: Patients who underwent surgery for aortic coarctation (COA) have an increased risk of arterial hypertension. We aimed at evaluating (1) differences between hypertensive and non-hypertensive patients and (2) the value of cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) to predict the development or progression of hypertension. METHODS: Between 1999 and 2010, CPET was performed in 223 COA-patients of whom 122 had resting blood pressures of <140/90 mmHg without medication, and 101 were considered hypertensive. Comparative statistics were performed. Cox regression analysis was used to assess the relation between demographic, clinical and exercise variables and the development/progression of hypertension. RESULTS: At baseline, hypertensive patients were older (p=0.007), were more often male (p=0.004) and had repair at later age (p=0.008) when compared to normotensive patients. After 3.6 ± 1.2 years, 29/120 (25%) normotensive patients developed hypertension. In normotensives, VE/VCO2-slope (p=0.0016) and peak systolic blood pressure (SBP; p=0.049) were significantly related to the development of hypertension during follow-up. Cut-off points related to higher risk for hypertension, based on best sensitivity and specificity, were defined as VE/VCO2-slope ≥ 27 and peak SBP ≥ 220 mmHg. In the hypertensive group, antihypertensive medication was started/extended in 48/101 (48%) patients. Only age was associated with the need to start/extend antihypertensive therapy in this group (p=0.042). CONCLUSIONS: Higher VE/VCO2-slope and higher peak SBP are risk factors for the development of hypertension in adults with COA. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing may guide clinical decision making regarding close blood pressure control and preventive lifestyle recommendations.
