Lung function and quality of life one year after severe COVID-19 in Brazil

ABSTRACT

Objective:

To evaluate symptoms, lung function, and quality of life of a cohort of patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19 12 months after hospital admission.

Methods:

This was a cross-sectional study. We included severe COVID-19 survivors hospitalized in one of three tertiary referral hospitals for COVID-19 in the city of Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Participants were submitted to lung function and six-minute walk tests and completed the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire.

Results:

The whole sample comprised 189 COVID-19 survivors (mean age = 59.6 ± 13.4 years) who had been admitted to a ward only (n = 96; 50.8%) or to an ICU (n = 93; 49.2%). At 12 months of follow-up, 43% of patients presented with dyspnea, 27% of whom had a restrictive ventilatory disorder and 18% of whom presented with impaired DL_CO. There were no significant differences in FVC, FEV₁, and TLC between the survivors with or without dyspnea. However, those who still had dyspnea had significantly more impaired DL_CO (14.9% vs. 22.4%; p < 0.020) and poorer quality of life.

Conclusions:

After one year, survivors of severe COVID-19 in a middle-income country still present with high symptom burden, restrictive ventilatory changes, and loss of quality of life. Ongoing follow-up is needed to characterize long COVID-19 and identify strategies to mitigate its consequences.

Keywords:
COVID-19; Respiratory function tests; Spirometry; Dyspnea; Quality of life

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, has been acknowledged to be responsible for a multisystemic disorder.¹ Similarly to other coronaviruses, there are also reports of prolonged symptoms after COVID-19.²

There are various mechanisms that may be involved in symptom persistence.^1,3 In a prospective cohort from Wuhan, China, dyspnea was reported in 26% of patients after 6 months.⁴ Interstitial abnormalities were observed in 55.7% of patients after a mean of 90 days from hospital discharge.⁵ A reduced DL_CO has been the most frequently detected alteration in the long term.⁶ Scientific studies comparing clinical data and pulmonary function after 45 days or 3 months and 6 months of hospitalization for severe COVID-19 showed that there was improvement in pulmonary function at 6 months.^4,7-9

Physical fitness deficit was associated with dyspnea and fatigue in studies of persistent symptoms after COVID-19.^10,11 However, in a study that evaluated six-minute walk test (6MWT) results after hospital discharge and then again after 3 months, no differences were found in demographic, anthropometric, physiological, and clinical characteristics or in the perception of health status between patients with and without exercise limitation.¹²

Poor quality of life (QoL) has been detected in 59% of 1,108 participants pooled in a systematic review and meta-analysis with survivors of COVID-19.¹³ Another review, including only studies involving hospitalized patients, identified that COVID-19 patients had worse health-related QoL (HRQoL) when compared with hospitalized patients without COVID-19.¹⁴

The aim of this study was to describe alterations in lung function and perceived HRQoL in a cohort of patients 1 year after hospital admission for severe COVID-19 in Brazil and to compare COVID-19 patients who were admitted to a ward only and those admitted to an ICU.

METHODS

This is a nested cross-sectional study in a multicenter cohort of COVID-19 survivors evaluating patients 12 months after admission to one of three public referral hospitals for COVID-19 in the city of Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil, namely, Hospital das Clínicas da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Hospital Júlia Kubitschek, and Hospital Eduardo de Menezes, between May 25, 2020 and December 28, 2020, during the first wave of COVID-19. During that period, vaccination was unavailable in the country. Patients were stratified into two groups: patients admitted only to a ward, that is, who never required admission to an ICU; and patients admitted to an ICU, who required high-flow oxygen therapy, mechanical ventilation, or use of vasopressors during ICU stay.

Patients ≥ 18 years of age who had ARDS upon hospital admission were included. COVID-19 was confirmed by a positive RT-PCR result of a nasal swab sample. A case of ARDS was defined as an individual with fever and cough or sore throat, associated with dyspnea, chest tightness, or Spo₂ < 95%.¹⁵ Eligible patients at hospital admission were invited to participate in outpatient follow-up and were included in the study when they attended the outpatient clinic 360 days after admission and completed the study protocol. Patients who withdrew consent were excluded from the analysis.

The study was approved by the Brazilian National Research Ethics Committee under protocol number 5.416.966. All participants were invited to participate in the study and were included after the participant signed an informed consent form.

Demographic data, clinical manifestations, comorbidities, continuous medication, smoking, date of respiratory symptom onset, date of hospital admission, length of hospital stay, length of ICU stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and complications during hospitalization were recorded.

During consultations at the outpatient clinics, information on the participants’ QoL was collected using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire (EuroQoL Research Foundation).¹⁶ The instrument consists of a descriptive form, comprising five dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. For each dimension there are three levels: no problems, moderate problems, and extreme problems. Patients were asked to indicate their health status by checking the box next to the most appropriate statement in each of the five dimensions. Finally, the patient assigned a value to their QoL using a visual analog scale from 0 (worst health) to 100 (best health).

The main outcomes studied were lung function (spirometry, lung volumes, and DL_CO), physical exercise capacity measured by the distance covered in six minutes (6MWD), respiratory muscle strength (MIP and MEP), and perceived QoL at 12 months after hospital admission.

According to the WHO, the post-COVID-19 condition occurs in individuals with a history of probable or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, generally 3 months after the onset of COVID-19, with symptoms lasting at least 2 months that cannot be explained by alternative diagnoses.¹⁷

At follow-up, the persistence of cough and dyspnea (according to the modified Medical Research Council scale),¹⁸ vital data, weight, and height were recorded. Lung function tests were performed in the Pulmonary Function Laboratory of the University Hospital of the Federal University of Minas Gerais. Lung volumes were measured using a Vyntus^TM body plethysmograph (Vyaire Medical Inc., Höchberg, Germany) of variable pressure equipped with a pneumotachograph in accordance with the standards proposed by the American Thoracic Society and the European Respiratory Society.^19,20 The following variables were studied: TLC, slow vital capacity, FVC, FEV₁, and the FEV₁/FVC ratio. Measurements were expressed in absolute values and in percentage of predicted (%pred) values for the Brazilian population.^21,22 The single breath method was used to determine DL_CO, considering the values suggested by Guimarães et al.²³

The 6MWT was performed in a 30-m corridor using a portable oximeter (Nonin Medical Inc, Plymouth, MN, USA) according to international recommendations.²⁴ The following variables were recorded: oxygen saturation (Spo₂), heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), dyspnea score on the Borg scale at the beginning and end of the 6MWT, HR in %pred relative to the maximum HR in %pred for adults, HR at the end of the 6MWT, HR after 1 min of recovery from the 6MWT (HRR₁), and 6MWD. A fall in oxygen saturation ≥ 4% or a reduction in HR after 1 min of 6MWT recovery < 12 bpm were considered altered results.²⁴ The 6MWD was expressed in absolute values and in %pred for the Brazilian population.²⁵

MIP and MEP were measured with an analog manometer (Makil, Londrina, Brazil) as described by Laveneziana et al.²⁶ The maneuver was repeated five to eight times, respecting a reproducibility of 10%. The highest value obtained was recorded. The predicted values were calculated according to Neder et al.²⁷ The lower limit of normality (LLN) for each variable was calculated from predictive equations.²⁰

Possible sources of bias were the diagnosis of COVID-19, lung function measurements, and selection bias. Diagnosis was defined by RT-PCR; the equipment was calibrated according to recommendations of the manufacturers, and clinical evaluation was based on standardized questionnaires. Selection bias was minimized by the multicenter design.

Data were collected using the REDCap platform (Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA)²⁸ and analyzed with the IBM SPSS Statistics software package, version 28.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). Categorical variables were described as frequencies and ratios. Continuous variables with normal distribution were described as means and standard deviations, while those with non-normal distribution were described as medians and interquartile ranges. The predicted values and the LLN were used as risk to categorize continuous variables. The parametric Student’s t-test or the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test were used to check the differences in means and medians, respectively, between groups, and the Pearson’s chi-square test for ratios. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to adjust associations by BMI, use of mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, and length of hospital stay. Hypothesis testing was two-sided, and the significance level was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

At hospital admission during the study period, 454 patients were considered eligible, but 252 did not attend the evaluation at 360 days, 4 withdrew consent, and 9 died. The final sample consisted of 189 patients evaluated 360 days after hospitalization for severe COVID-19 (Figure 1). Among those lost to follow-up, a greater proportion corresponded to patients who had been admitted to the ICU (p = 0,032; Supplementary Table 1)

Figure 1
Flow chart of the participant selection process.

The Ward and ICU groups were composed of 96 (50.79%) and 93 (49.20%) of participants, respectively. The groups were homogeneous regarding demographic variables: age (59.6 ± 13.4 years), gender (49.2% were male), presence of comorbidities (88.8%), schooling, family income, and self-declared skin color. Among the pre-existing conditions, there was a difference between the groups only regarding the presence of obesity, which was more frequent in the ICU group (p = 0.018). In the sample as a whole, asthma and COPD were reported in 11.1% and 6.7%, respectively, and 26.6% of the patients were smokers (Table 1).

After 12 months, we found persistence of cough and dyspnea in 19% and 43% of patients in the Ward and ICU groups, respectively, but with no statistical difference. In the logistic regression analysis, no significant difference was observed between the groups regarding spirometry variables, lung volumes, DL_CO, 6MWT, and muscle strength (p > 0.05; Table 2).

After stratifying the patients into two groups, with and without dyspnea, we observed that cough was more common in the first group, as well as higher BMI values. Lung function variables (VC, FVC, FEV₁, FEV₁/FVC ratio, TLC, DL_CO, MIP, and MEP) obtained in the group with dyspnea were significantly lower. However, the frequency of altered variables did not differ significantly between the groups, except for DL_CO [(dyspnea: 15 (14.9%) vs. no dyspnea: 17 (22.4%); p = 0.011]. The dyspnea group had shorter 6MWD, with a higher percentage of patients with a final Borg scale score ≥ 4, (44.4% vs. 8.9%; p = 0.001; Table 3).

Table 1
Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, as well as pre-existing conditions, at baseline in the sample as a whole and by group (Ward vs. ICU).^a

Variable		Total sample	Group		p
			Ward	ICU
		N = 189	n = 96	n = 93
Age, years		59.6 ± 13.4	60.9 ± 14.3	58.4 ± 12.4	0.197
Men, n (%)		93 (49.2)	49 (51.0)	44 (47.3)	0.608
Comorbiditiesb		167 (88.8)	85 (89.5)	82 (88.2)	0.777
Variable	Category	n (%)
Schoolingb	Undergraduate/graduate education	17 (9.7)	7 (7.8)	10 (11.6)	0.165
	Middle to high school	76 (43.2)	45 (50.0)	31 (36.0)
	No education or incomplete elementary school (< 8 years)	83 (47.2)	38 (42.2)	45 (52.3)
Incomeb	> 3 MW	33 (19.4)	18 (20.7)	15 (18.1)	0.633
	< 3 MW	131 (77.1)	67 (77.0)	64 (77.1)
	No income	6 (3.5)	2 (2.3)	4 (4.8)
Self-reported skin colorb	White	56 (29.8)	30 (31.3)	26 (28.3)	0.654
	Non-Whited	132 (70.2)	66 (68.8)	66 (71.7)
Prevailing circumstances
Hypertensionc		118 (71.1)	56 (66.7)	62 (75.6)	0.204
Obesityc		66 (42.0)	28 (33.3)	38 (52.1)	0.018
Diabetes mellitusc		53 (31.9)	22 (25.9)	31 (38.3)	0.087
Other cardiovascular diseasesc		20 (12.4)	11 (13.1)	9 (11.7)	0.787
Asthmac		18 (11.1)	10 (11.9)	8 (10.3)	0.739
COPDc		11 (6.7)	4 (4.8)	7 (8.9)	0.297
Chronic kidney diseasec		8 (5.0)	3 (3.6)	5 (6.5)	0.394
Other comorbid disordersc		76 (46.3)	43 (50.6)	33 (41.8)	0.258
Smokingb		49 (26.6)	28 (30.1)	21 (23.1)	0.281
Use of immunosuppressive drugsc,e		8 (5.1)	6 (7.6)	2 (2.6)	0.157
Solid organ transplantationc		5 (3.1)	3 (3.6)	2 (2.6)	0.711
Acute COVID-19
Coughb		133 (70.7)	61 (63.5)	72 (78.3)	0.027
Dyspneab		151 (80.7)	70 (73.7)	81 (88.0)	0.013
Invasive mechanical ventilationb		34 (18.5)	0 (0.0)	34 (38,6)	< 0.001
Acute kidney failureb		13 (7.1%)	3 (3.1)	10 (11.4)	0.029
Length of stay, days		15,92 ± 17.7	9.56 ± 11.3	22,47 ± 20.6	< 0.001

• MW: minimum wage (3 MW = R$ 613.50); and CVD: cardiovascular disease. ^aValues expressed as n (%) or mean ± SD. ^bMissing data ≤ 10%. ^cMissing data between 10-20%.^dNon-White: black (20.7%), brown (48.9%), and yellow (0.5%). ^ePrednisone > 20 mg/day for more than two weeks, cyclosporine, cyclophosphamide, mycophenolate, rituximab, azathioprine, and/or chemotherapy in the last 30 days.

Table 2
Symptoms, spirometry, lung volumes, DL_CO, respiratory muscle strength, and six-minute walk test 360 days after hospitalization for COVID-19 (D360) in the whole sample and by group (Ward vs. ICU).^a,*

Variable	Total sample	Group		Crude p-value	Adjusted p-value**
		Ward	ICU
	N = 189	n = 96	n = 93
Follow-up time on the D360, days	363.9 ± 13.8	363,6 ± 13.6	364.2 ± 13.8	0.784	-
Symptoms of long COVID-19
Coughb	35 (19.0)	18 (19.4)	17 (18.7)	0.907	0.443
Dyspneab	80 (43.0)	38 (40.0)	42 (46.2)	0.397	0.274
Spirometry
VC, Lb	3.0 ± 0.8	3.1 ± 0.8	3.1 ± 0.8	0.934	0.145
VC, % predb	90.1 [79.5-99.8]	92.8 [83.0-99.2]	87.0 [76.0-100.4]	0.285	0.931
VC < LLN, %b	40 (23.0)	16 (17.6)	24 (28.9)	0.076	0.229
FVC, Ls b	3.0 ± 0.8	3.0 ± 0.8	3.0 ± 0.8	0.807	0.188
FVC, % predb	86.8 ± 15.2	87.1 ± 13.7	86.4 ± 16.8	0.750	0.710
FVC < LLNb	55 (29.3)	24 (25.0)	31(33.7)	0.190	0.539
FEV1, Lb	2.3 ± 0.6	2.3 ± 0.7	2.3 ± 0.6	0.508	0.247
FEV1, % predb	83.0 ± 16.7	83.2 ± 17.1	82.8 ± 16.5	0.886	0.980
FEV1 < LLNb	65 (34.6)	32 (33.3)	33 (35.9)	0.715	0.635
FEV1/FVCb	77.5 [72.3-82.1]	77.9 [71.8-82.4]	77.3 [72.4-81.7]	0.695	0.913
FEV1/FVC < LLNb	84 (44.7)	42 (43.8)	42(45.7)	0.793	0.279
Lung volumes
TLC, Lb	4.7 ± 1.1	4.8 ± 1.0	4.6 ± 1.1	0.171	0.776
TLC, % predb	87.2 ± 14.0	89.4 ± 13.5	84.8 ± 14.2	0.025	0.450
TLC < LLNb	50 (27.3)	17 (18.3)	33 (36.7)	0.005	0.085
RV, Lb	1.6 ± 0.6	1.7 ± 0.5	1.5 ± 0.6	0.067	0.308
RV, % predb	83.0 ± 25.5	86.9 ± 25.4	79.0 ± 25.1	0.039	0.253
RV/TLC, % predb	96.9 ± 24.2	100.4 ± 23.9	93.2 ± 24.1	0.045	0.101
DLCO
DLCO, mL.min-1.mmHgb	19.7 ± 5.4	20.1 ± 5.8	19.2 ± 4.9	0.284	0.690
DLCO, % predc	93.1 ± 19.6	96.6 ± 19.9	89.4 ± 18.7	0.013	0.145
DLCO < LLNc*	32 (17.8)	12 (12.9)	20 (23.0)	0.077	0.069
Respiratory muscle strength
MIP, cmH2Oc	76.6 ± 26.7	75.1 ± 28.9	78.2 ± 24.4	0.444	0.290
MIP, % predc	85.5 ± 27.2	83.0 ± 27.7	88.0 ± 26.6	0.222	0.373
MIP < LINc	35 (19.7)	20 (22.2)	15 (17.0)	0.385	0.297
MEP, cmH2Oc	82.9 ± 30.2	81.0 ± 31.1	84.8 ± 29.3	0.400	0.578
MEP, % predc	48.9 ± 16.3	48.4 ± 17.2	49.4 ± 15.4	0.680	0.788
MEP < LINc	146 (82.0)	71 (78.9)	75 (85.2)	0.271	0.659
Six-minute walk test
Distance, mb	486.4 [409.7-532.4]	492.2 [397.4-559.9)	466.0 [430.7-512.0]	0.099	0.220
Distance, % predb	91.7 ± 17.1	94.0 [81.2-101.5]	90.0 [75.2-102.7]	0.368	0.820
Saturation drop during the test (ΔSpO2 ≤ 4%)b	53 (30.1)	25 (28.4)	28 (31.8)	0.622	0.685
HRR1, bpmb	91.0 [78.0-102.0]	91.7 ± 13.7	85.0 ± 19.3	0.616	0.990
Δ(final HR, HRR1.), bpmb	22.7 ± 15.6	22.8 ± 15.7	22.7 ± 15.7	0.969	0.444
%HRmaxb	71.3 ± 11.8	72.7 ± 11.9	69.9 ± 11.6	0.109	0.516
Final Borg scale score ≥ 4b	41 (23.3)	19 (21.6)	22 (25.0)	0.593	0.559

• % pred: % of predicted values; LLN: lower limit of normality; HRR₁: recovery heart rate in the first minute; and %HRmax: percentage of maximum HR achieved. ^aValues expressed as n (%), mean ± SD, or median [IQR]. ^bMissing data ≤ 10%. ^cMissing data in 11-12%. *Variables expressed as median [IQR] were calculated with the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test. **Adjusted for BMI, invasive mechanical ventilation, and length of hospital stay.

Table 3
Symptoms, spirometry, lung volumes, DL_CO, respiratory muscle strength, and six-minute walk test 360 days after hospitalization for COVID-19 (D360) in the whole sample and by group (absence of dyspnea vs. presence of dyspnea).^a,*

Variable	Total sample	Group		Crude p-value	Adjusted p-value**
		No dyspnea	Dyspnea
	N = 186	n = 106	n = 80
Follow-up time on the D360, days	363.9 ± 13.8	363,7 ± 13.4	364.3 ± 14.3	0.768	-
Symptoms of long COVID-19
Coughb	35 (19.0)	11 (10.5)	24 (30.4)	0.001	0.010
BMI, kg/m2	32.3 ± 7.0	31.0 ± 6.4	34.1 ± 7.4	0.002	-
Spirometry
VC, Lb	3.0 [2.5-3.8]	3.3 [2.8-4.0]	2.7 [2.4-3.1]	< 0.001	< 0.001
VC, % predb	90.1 ± 15.2	92.0 ± 14.8	87.3 ± 15.5	0.049	0.083
VC < LLN, %b	39 (22.8)	22 (21.6)	17 (24.6)	0.639	0.964
FVC, Ls b	2.9 [2.5-3.6]	3.2 [2.7-3.8]	2.6 [2.3-3.1]	< 0.001	< 0.001
FVC, % predb	86.8 ± 15.2	89.0 ± 15.0	83.8 ± 15.2	0.021	0.051
FVC < LLNb	54 (29.2)	25 (23.8)	29 (36.3)	0.065	0.077
FEV1, Lb	2.3 ± 0.6	2.5 ± 0.6	2.0 ± 0.6	< 0.001	< 0.001
FEV1, % predb	83.1 ± 16.8	86.6 ± 15.2	78.6 ± 17.7	0.001	0.001
FEV1 < LLNb	63 (34.1)	30 (28.6)	33 (41.3)	0.071	0.100
FEV1/FVCb	76.2 ± 9.1	77.5 ± 7.5	74.6 ± 10.6	0.027	0.002
FEV1/FVC < LLNb	81 (43.8)	46 (43.8)	35 (43.8)	0.994	0.576
Lung volumes
TLC, Lb	4.7 ± 1.1	4.9 ± 1.1	4.4 ± 1.1	0.001	0.012
TLC, % predb	85.9 [79.6-95.2]	86.9 [79.9-95.2]	84.2 [77.4-95.0]	0.455	0.923
TLC < LLNb	49 (27.2)	27 (26.0)	22 (28.9)	0.657	0.718
RV, Lb	1.6 ± 0.6	1.6 ± 0.5	1.6 ± 0.7	0.907	0.240
RV, % predb	82.8 ± 25.5	80.3 ± 20.5	86.4 ± 30.9	0.115	0.035
RV/TLC, % predb	97.0 ± 23.9	92.5 ± 22.0	103.0 ± 25.0	0.003	0.005
DLCO
DLCO, mL.min-1.mmHgb	19.7 ± 5.4	20.9 ± 5.6	17.9 ± 4.7	< 0,001	< 0,001
DLCO, % predc	93.0 ± 19.7	94.0 ± 19.3	91.6 ± 20.4	0.408	0.021
DLCO < LLNc*	32 (18.1)	15 (14.9)	17 (22.4)	0.198	0.011
Respiratory muscle strength
MIP, cmH2Oc	76.1 ± 26.7	80.1 ± 28.6	70.9 ± 23.1	0.024	0.026
MIP, % predc	85.0 ± 27.1	82.9 ± 26.9	87.9 ± 27.2	0.222	0.479
MIP < LINc	35 (20.0)	22 (22.0)	13 (17.3)	0.445	0.750
MEP, cmH2Oc	82.3 ± 29.8	85.8 ± 32.0	77.7 ± 26.2	0.077	0.085
MEP, % predc	48.6 ± 16.3	48.0 ± 16.2	49.5 ± 16.4	0.568	0.912
MEP < LINc	145 (82.9)	81 (81.0)	64 (85.3)	0.452	0.373
Six-minute walk test
Distance, mb	486.4 [409.7-532.4]	512.0 [457.0-553.3)	440.3 [358.4-486.4]	< 0.001	< 0.001
Distance, % predb	94.3 [82.7-103.2]	98.2 [87.8-105.4]	87.1 [75.4-99.3]	< 0.001	< 0.001
Saturation drop during the test (ΔSpO2 ≤ 4%)b	53 (30.6)	30 (29.7)	23 (319)	0.753	0.929
HRR1, bpmb	89.8 ± 18.7	91.7 ± 13.7	85.0 ± 19.3	0.118	0.062
Δ(final HR, HRR1.), bpmb	22.7 ± 15.6	22.8 ± 15.3	22.7 ± 16.1	0.944	0.992
%HRmaxb	71.3 ± 11.8	72.1 ± 11.5	70.1 ± 12.3	0.277	0.329
Final Borg scale score ≥ 4b	41 (23.7)	9 (8.9)	32 (44.4)	< 0.001	< 0.001

• % pred: % of predicted values; LLN: lower limit of normality; HRR₁: recovery heart rate in the first minute; and %HRmax: percentage of maximum HR achieved. ^aValues expressed as n (%), mean ± SD, or median [IQR]. ^bMissing data ≤ 10%. ^cMissing data in 11-12%. *Variables expressed as median [IQR] were calculated with the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test. **Adjusted for BMI, invasive mechanical ventilation, and length of hospital stay.

In the assessment of QoL, the group with dyspnea had worse mobility problems, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety, and depression. The mean follow-up duration was 364 days (Table 4).

Table 4
Description of the dimensions of quality of life according to the EQ-5D3L questionnaire 360 days after hospitalization for COVID-19 in the whole sample and by group (absence of dyspnea vs. presence of dyspnea).^a

Variable	Total sample	Group		p
		No dyspnea	Dyspnea
	N = 186	n = 106	n = 80
Mobility
No problems	112 (60.2)	76 (71.7)	36 (45.0)	< 0.001
Some problems or inability	74 (39.8)	30 (28.3)	44 (55.0)
Self-care
No problems	155 (83.3)	100 (94.3)	55 (68.8)	< 0.001
Some problems or inability	31 (16.7)	6 (5.7)	25 (31.3)
Regular activities
No problems	132 (71.0)	88 (83.0)	44 (55.0)	< 0.001
Some problems or inability	54 (29.0)	18 (17.0)	36 (45.0)
Pain/malaise
Absent	78 (41.9)	58 (54.7)	20 (25.0)	< 0.001
Moderate/extreme	108 (58.1)	48 (45.3)	60 (75.0)
Anxiety/Depression
Absent	94 (50.5)	70 (66.0)	24 (30.0)	< 0.001
Moderate/extreme	92 (49.5)	36 (34.0)	56 (70.0)
Comprehensive overview on health	80.0 [70.0 - 90.0]	87.5 [70.0 - 98.2]	80.0 [50.0 - 83.7]	< 0.001

• ^a
  Values expressed as n (%) or median [IQR].

DISCUSSION

The main results of this study show that dyspnea was present in 43% of the cohort at 12 months. Symptoms of cough and dyspnea in the acute phase predominated in the ICU group; however, at 12 months, there was no difference between the groups. About 27% of the cohort still had a restrictive ventilatory pattern, and 18% had altered DL_CO at 12 months.

Corroborating our results, post-COVID-19 persistent symptoms were still observed in 30% of the subjects in the Wuhan cohort, China, at one-year follow-up, regardless of initial severity. These symptoms were related to decreased QoL, lower functional capacity, and abnormal mental health.²⁹ A possible explanation for persistent dyspnea is a combination of peripheral and psychological factors.³⁰

In another Brazilian cohort study, one year after hospital discharge, more than one-third of patients still had persistent COVID-19-related symptoms, regardless of acute disease severity. The most common symptoms were dyspnea (54.5%), fatigue (50.0%), myalgia, and muscle weakness (46.6%), which decreased over time. Obese patients also had a greater risk of dyspnea, although this was not significant after adjustment.³¹ In our dataset, BMI > 30 kg/m² was not associated with persistent dyspnea.

According to plethysmography, pulmonary function still remained impaired in part of the cohort (27% restriction), regardless of the unit of admission (ward or ICU). After stratification by groups with and without dyspnea, reduced DL_CO was the only variable significantly associated with dyspnea at 12 months (p = 0.02). Huang et al.,³² when evaluating survivors of COVID-19 after 12 months, described 29% of restriction and 54% of altered DL_CO in individuals who required ICU admission. Meanwhile, Steinbeis et al.³³ reported 44-50% restriction and 61-76% altered DL_CO among survivors who required high-flow oxygen and invasive mechanical ventilation, showing that these differences still persist after 12 months of follow-up.

Pulmonary fibrosis after COVID-19 may be related to restriction and altered DL_CO and may be explained by the duration of illness and mechanical ventilation use.³⁴ Impaired DL_CO may also be attributable to vascular abnormalities.³⁵ These data suggest that changes in lung function after 1 year are not enough to explain the late presence of dyspnea.

Regarding the exercise capacity assessment by 6MWT, individuals with persistent dyspnea walked a shorter distance (440.3 m vs. 512.0 m, p < 0.001). They also had a worse assessment of sensory stress (final Borg score ≥ 4). However, no differences were observed in gas exchange during exercise (desaturation ≥ 4%), in Δ(final HR, HRR₁), suggesting that the worse 6MWD in individuals with persistent dyspnea may be due to the peripheral muscle component. Razak et al.,² in their analysis of 119 survivors of COVID-19 in 12 months, also justified the shorter 6MWD in their patients as a result of muscle weakness.

The data presented here have shown that some mobility problems, and anxiety/depression were present in more than 50% of the individuals with dyspnea. Similarly to our results, Schlemmer et al.³⁶ found that although most participants recovered overall, high percentages had functional sequelae and residual symptoms over the course of follow-up, all of which may have affected their HRQoL.

Evidence is insufficient to determine conclusions about the underlying mechanisms of post-COVID breathlessness. A previous review study reported inconsistent results of impaired lung function or lung pathologies, although correlations between mental health disorders (depression and anxiety) and post-COVID-19 breathlessness appear to be more consistent.³⁷ Sakai et al.³⁸ suggest that rehabilitation after COVID-19 should be considered an effective therapeutic strategy to improve the functional capacity and QoL of patients with COVID-19.

The strength of our study is its multicenter design, in which regional public referral hospitals for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 participated. Specialized trained teams, including undergraduate and graduate students, as well as research professors, carried out data collection systematically and were able to identify patients according to their disease severity using a standardized questionnaire through REDcap.

This study has limitations. There was no information on return to work, use of health care services, and mental health status of the patients after discharge. Therefore, longitudinal analysis of these outcomes was not possible. Similarly to most COVID-19 follow-up studies, there is a potential information bias regarding self-reported comorbidities during the acute phase and during convalescence. The outcome of patients who missed follow-up and were not assessed 1 year after admission is unknown, and most of the patients were those who had been admitted to an ICU.

Twelve months after acute infection, survivors of severe COVID-19 still had a high burden of symptoms, such as dyspnea, restrictive ventilatory changes in lung function, and loss of QoL, identified in an established cohort in a middle-income country that had been highly impacted by the pandemic.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank the Federal University of Ouro Preto for their support.

REFERENCES

• ¹
  Nalbandian A, Sehgal K, Gupta A, Madhavan MV, McGroder C, Stevens JS, et al. Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome. Nat Med. 2021;27(4):601-615. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01283-z
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01283-z
• ²
  Razak F, Katz GM, Cheung AM, et al. Understanding the post COVID-19 condition (long COVID) and the expected burden for Ontario. Science Briefs of the Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table. 2021;2(44). https://doi.org/10.47326/ ocsat.2021.02.44.1.0
  » https://doi.org/10.47326/ ocsat.2021.02.44.1.0
• ³
  Akbarialiabad H, Taghrir MH, Abdollahi A, Ghahramani N, Kumar M, Paydar S, et al. Long COVID, a comprehensive systematic scoping review. Infection. 2021;49(6):1163-1186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-021-01666-x
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-021-01666-x
• ⁴
  Huang C, Huang L, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Gu X, et al. 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study. Lancet. 2021;397(10270):220-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32656-8
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32656-8
• ⁵
  So M, Kabata H, Fukunaga K, Takagi H, Kuno T. Radiological and functional lung sequelae of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pulm Med. 2021;21(1):97. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-021-01463-0
  » https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-021-01463-0
• ⁶
  Mancuzo EV, Marinho CC, Machado-Coelho GLL, Batista AP, Oliveira JF, Andrade BH, et al. Lung function of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 45 days after hospital discharge: first report of a prospective multicenter study in Brazil. J Bras Pneumol. 2021;47(6):e20210162. https://doi.org/10.36416/1806-3756/e20210162
  » https://doi.org/10.36416/1806-3756/e20210162
• ⁷
  Cabo-Gambin R, Benítez ID, Carmona P, Santiesteve S, Mínguez O, Vaca R, et al. Three to Six Months Evolution of Pulmonary Function and Radiological Features in Critical COVID-19 Patients: A Prospective Cohort. Arch Bronconeumol. 2022;58:59-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arbres.2021.07.005
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arbres.2021.07.005
• ⁸
  Darcis G, Bouquegneau A, Maes N, Thys M, Henket M, Labye F, et al. Long-term clinical follow-up of patients suffering from moderate-to-severe COVID-19 infection: a monocentric prospective observational cohort study. Int J Infect Dis. 2021;109:209-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2021.07.016
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2021.07.016
• ⁹
  Bretas DC, Leite AS, Mancuzo EV, Prata TA, Andrade BH, Oliveira JDGF, et al. Lung function six months after severe COVID-19: Does time, in fact, heal all wounds?. Braz J Infect Dis. 2022;26(3):102352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjid.2022.102352
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjid.2022.102352
• ¹⁰
  Skjørten I, Ankerstjerne OAW, Trebinjac D, Brønstad E, Rasch-Halvorsen Ø, Einvik G, et al. Cardiopulmonary exercise capacity and limitations 3 months after COVID-19 hospitalisation. Eur Respir J. 2021;58(2):2100996. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.00996-2021
  » https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.00996-2021
• ¹¹
  Rinaldo RF, Mondoni M, Parazzini EM, Pitari F, Brambilla E, Luraschi S, et al. Deconditioning as main mechanism of impaired exercise response in COVID-19 survivors. Eur Respir J. 2021;58(2):2100870. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.00870-2021
  » https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.00870-2021
• ¹²
  Zampogna E, Ambrosino N, Saderi L, Sotgiu G, Bottini P, Pignatti P, et al. Time course of exercise capacity in patients recovering from COVID-19-associated pneumonia. J Bras Pneumol. 2021;47(4):e20210076. https://doi.org/10.36416/1806-3756/e20210076
  » https://doi.org/10.36416/1806-3756/e20210076
• ¹³
  Malik P, Patel K, Pinto C, Jaiswal R, Tirupathi R, Pillai S, et al. Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PCS) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL)-A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2022;94(1):253-262. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.27309
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.27309
• ¹⁴
  Figueiredo EAB, Silva WT, Tsopanoglou SP, Vitorino DFM, Oliveira LFL, Silva KLS, et al. The health-related quality of life in patients with post-COVID-19 after hospitalization: a systematic review. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2022;55:e0741. https://doi.org/10.1590/0037-8682-0741-2021
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0037-8682-0741-2021
• ¹⁵
  Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Atenção Especializada à Saúde. Departamento de Atenção Hospitalar, Domiciliar e de Urgência. Protocolo de Tratamento do Novo Coronavírus (2019-nCoV). Brasilia: Ministerio da Saúde; 2020.
• ¹⁶
  EQ-5D-3L User Guide. Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-3L instrument Version 6.0. Updated December 2018. EuroQol Research Foundation; 2021
• ¹⁷
  World Health Organization (WHO) [homepage on the Internet]. Geneva: WHO; c2021 [updated 2021 Oct 6]. A clinical case definition of post COVID-19 condition by a Delphi consensus. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Post_COVID-19_condition-Clinical_case_definition-2021.1
  » https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Post_COVID-19_condition-Clinical_case_definition-2021.1
• ¹⁸
  Lareau SC, Meek PM, Roos PJ. Development and testing of the modified version of the pulmonary functional status and dyspnea questionnaire (PFSDQ-M). Heart Lung. 1998;27(3):159-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-9563(98)90003-6
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-9563(98)90003-6
• ¹⁹
  Graham BL, Steenbruggen I, Miller MR, Barjaktarevic IZ, Cooper BG, Hall GL, et al. Standardization of Spirometry 2019 Update. An Official American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society Technical Statement. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;200(8):e70-e88. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201908-1590ST
  » https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201908-1590ST
• ²⁰
  Pellegrino R, Viegi G, Brusasco V, Crapo RO, Burgos F, Casaburi R, et al. Interpretative strategies for lung function tests. Eur Respir J. 2005;26(5):948-968. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.05.00035205
  » https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.05.00035205
• ²¹
  Pereira CA, Sato T, Rodrigues SC. New reference values for forced spirometry in white adults in Brazil. J Bras Pneumol. 2007;33(4):397-406. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-37132007000400008
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-37132007000400008
• ²²
  Lessa T, Pereira CAC, Soares MR. Reference equations for plethysmographic lung volumes in White adults in Brazil as derived by linear regression. J Bras Pneumol. 2021;47(1):e20200359. https://doi.org/10.36416/1806-3756/e20200359
  » https://doi.org/10.36416/1806-3756/e20200359
• ²³
  Guimarães VP, Miranda DM, Reis MAS, Andrade TL, Matos RL, Soares MR, et al. Reference values for the carbon monoxide diffusion (transfer factor) in a brazilian sample of white race. J Bras Pneumol. 2019;45(5):e20180262. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-3713/e20180262
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-3713/e20180262
• ²⁴
  Holland AE, Spruit MA, Troosters T, Puhan MA, Pepin V, Saey D, et al. An official European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society technical standard: field walking tests in chronic respiratory disease. Eur Respir J. 2014;44(6):1428-1446. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00150314
  » https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00150314
• ²⁵
  Soaresa MR, Pereira CA. Six-minute walk test: reference values for healthy adults in Brazil. J Bras Pneumol. 2011;37(5):576-583. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1806-37132011000500003
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/s1806-37132011000500003
• ²⁶
  Laveneziana P, Albuquerque A, Aliverti A, Babb T, Barreiro E, Dres M, et al. ERS statement on respiratory muscle testing at rest and during exercise. Eur Respir J. 2019;53(6):1801214. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01214-2018
  » https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01214-2018
• ²⁷
  Neder JA, Andreoni S, Lerario MC, Nery LE. Reference values for lung function tests. II. Maximal respiratory pressures and voluntary ventilation. Braz J Med Biol Res. 1999;32(6):719-727. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-879X1999000600007
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-879X1999000600007
• ²⁸
  Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377-381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
• ²⁹
  Wu X, Liu X, Zhou Y, Yu H, Li R, Zhan Q, et al. 3-month, 6-month, 9-month, and 12-month respiratory outcomes in patients following COVID-19-related hospitalisation: a prospective study. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9(7):747-754. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00174-0
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00174-0
• ³⁰
  Crook H, Raza S, Nowell J, Young M, Edison P. Long covid-mechanisms, risk factors, and management [published correction appears in BMJ. 2021 Aug 3;374:n1944]. BMJ. 2021;374:n1648. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1648
  » https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1648
• ³¹
  Visconti NRGDR, Cailleaux-Cezar M, Capone D, Dos Santos MIV, Graça NP, Loivos LPP, et al. Long-term respiratory outcomes after COVID-19: a Brazilian cohort study. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2022;46:e187. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2022.187
  » https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2022.187
• ³²
  Huang L, Yao Q, Gu X, Wang Q, Ren L, Wang Y, et al. 1-year outcomes in hospital survivors with COVID-19: a longitudinal cohort study [published correction appears in Lancet. 2022 May 7;399(10337):1778]. Lancet. 2021;398(10302):747-758. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01755-4
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01755-4
• ³³
  Steinbeis F, Thibeault C, Doellinger F, Ring RM, Mittermaier M, Ruwwe-Glösenkamp C, et al. Severity of respiratory failure and computed chest tomography in acute COVID-19 correlates with pulmonary function and respiratory symptoms after infection with SARS-CoV-2: An observational longitudinal study over 12 months. Respir Med. 2022;191:106709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2021.106709
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2021.106709
• ³⁴
  Mylvaganam RJ, Bailey JI, Sznajder JI, Sala MA; Northwestern Comprehensive COVID Center Consortium. Recovering from a pandemic: pulmonary fibrosis after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Eur Respir Rev. 2021;30(162):210194. https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0194-2021
  » https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0194-2021
• ³⁵
  Danzi GB, Loffi M, Galeazzi G, Gherbesi E. Acute pulmonary embolism and COVID-19 pneumonia: a random association?. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(19):1858. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa254
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa254
• ³⁶
  Schlemmer F, Valentin S, Boyer L, Guillaumot A, Chabot F, Dupin C, et al. Respiratory recovery trajectories after severe-to-critical COVID-19: a 1-year prospective multicentre study. Eur Respir J. 2023;61(4):2201532. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01532-2022
  » https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01532-2022
• ³⁷
  Zheng B, Daines L, Han Q, Hurst JR, Pfeffer P, Shankar-Hari M, et al. Prevalence, risk factors and treatments for post-COVID-19 breathlessness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Respir Rev. 2022;31(166):220071. https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0071-2022
  » https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0071-2022
• ³⁸
  Sakai T, Hoshino C, Hirao M, Nakano M, Takashina Y, Okawa A. Rehabilitation of Patients with Post-COVID-19 Syndrome: A Narrative Review. Prog Rehabil Med. 2023;8:20230017. https://doi.org/10.2490/prm.20230017
  » https://doi.org/10.2490/prm.20230017

• Financial support:

  This study received financial support from the Pró-Reitoria de Pesquisa of the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.
• 2
  Study carried out at the Hospital das Clínicas da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Hospital Júlia Kubitschek, and Hospital Eduardo de Menezes, all located in Belo Horizonte (MG) Brasil.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  27 May 2024
• Date of issue
  2024

History

• Received
  11 Aug 2023
• Accepted
  18 Mar 2024