Inflammation during early post-acute COVID-19 is associated with reduced exercise capacity and Long COVID symptoms after 1 year =============================================================================================================================== * Matthew S. Durstenfeld * Michael J. Peluso * Punita Kaveti * Christopher Hill * Danny Li * Erica Sander * Shreya Swaminathan * Victor M. Arechiga * Kaiwen Sun * Yifei Ma * Victor Zepeda * Scott Lu * Sarah A Goldberg * Rebecca Hoh * Ahmed Chenna * Brandon C. Yee * John W. Winslow * Christos J. Petropoulos * Sithu Win * J. Daniel Kelly * David V. Glidden * Timothy J. Henrich * Jeffrey N. Martin * Yoo Jin Lee * Mandar A. Aras * Carlin S. Long * Donald J. Grandis * Steven G. Deeks * Priscilla Y. Hsue ## Abstract **BACKGROUND** Mechanisms underlying persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection (post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 “PASC” or “Long COVID”) remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to elucidate the pathophysiology of cardiopulmonary PASC using multimodality cardiovascular imaging including cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) and ambulatory rhythm monitoring. **METHODS** We performed CMR, CPET, and ambulatory rhythm monitoring among adults > 1 year after PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in the UCSF Long-Term Impact of Infection with Novel Coronavirus cohort (LIINC; [NCT04362150](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT04362150&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F01%2F2022.05.17.22275235.atom)) and correlated findings with previously measured biomarkers. We used logistic regression to estimate associations with PASC symptoms (dyspnea, chest pain, palpitations, and fatigue) adjusted for confounders and linear regression to estimate differences between those with and without symptoms adjusted for confounders. **RESULTS** Out of 120 participants in the cohort, 46 participants (unselected for symptom status) had at least one advanced cardiac test performed at median 17 months following initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. Median age was 52 (IQR 42-61), 18 (39%) were female, and 6 (13%) were hospitalized for severe acute infection. On CMR (n=39), higher extracellular volume was associated with symptoms, but no evidence of late-gadolinium enhancement or differences in T1 or T2 mapping were demonstrated. We did not find arrhythmias on ambulatory monitoring. In contrast, on CPET (n=39), 13/23 (57%) with cardiopulmonary symptoms or fatigue had reduced exercise capacity (peak VO2<85% predicted) compared to 2/16 (13%) without symptoms (p=0.008). The adjusted difference in peak VO2 was 5.9 ml/kg/min lower (−9.6 to −2.3; p=0.002) or −21% predicted (−35 to −7; p=0.006) among those with symptoms. Chronotropic incompetence was the primary abnormality among 9/15 (60%) with reduced peak VO2. Adjusted heart rate reserve <80% was associated with reduced exercise capacity (OR 15.6, 95%CI 1.30-187; p=0.03). Inflammatory markers (hsCRP, IL-6, TNF-α) and SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels measured early in PASC were negatively correlated with peak VO2 more than 1 year later. **CONCLUSIONS** Cardiopulmonary symptoms and elevated inflammatory markers present early in PASC are associated with objectively reduced exercise capacity measured on cardiopulmonary exercise testing more than 1 year following COVID-19. Chronotropic incompetence may explain reduced exercise capacity among some individuals with PASC. **Clinical Perspective** What is New? * Elevated inflammatory markers in early post-acute COVID-19 are associated with reduced exercise capacity more than 1 year later. * Impaired chronotropic response to exercise is associated with reduced exercise capacity and cardiopulmonary symptoms more than 1 year after SARS-CoV-2 infection. * Findings on ambulatory rhythm monitoring point to perturbed autonomic function, while cardiac MRI findings argue against myocardial dysfunction and myocarditis. **Clinical Implications:** * Cardiopulmonary testing to identify etiologies of persistent symptoms in post-acute sequalae of COVID-19 or “Long COVID” should be performed in a manner that allows for assessment of heart rate response to exercise. * Therapeutic trials of anti-inflammatory and exercise strategies in PASC are urgently needed and should include assessment of symptoms and objective testing with cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Key Words * SARS-CoV-2 * COVID-19 * post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) * Long COVID * chronotropic incompetence * cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) * cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) * ambulatory rhythm monitoring * inflammation ## Introduction Following acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, at least 3% and possibly >30% of individuals experience persistent symptoms called “Long COVID,” a type of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) lasting for at least months following SARS-CoV-2 infection.1–5 Understanding PASC represents a major public health issue given that more than half the US population has been infected.6 Characterizing phenotypes of cardiopulmonary PASC with multi-modality cardiac testing may yield insights into mechanisms which remain incompletely understood but may include inflammation, aberrant immune activation, and endothelial dysfunction.7, 8 We previously demonstrated that inflammatory markers and possibly pericardial effusions were associated with symptoms 6 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection.9 We and others have demonstrated normal cardiac function on echocardiography 3-6 months after COVID-19, suggesting that other techniques are needed to identify physiologic correlates of symptoms.9–14 Evaluation with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) has confirmed normal cardiac function and revealed changes in parametric mapping and late gadolinium enhancement without consistent associations with symptoms or differences from controls.15–19 Studies using cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) have demonstrated reduced exercise capacity at 3-6 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection without consistent patterns of exercise limitation.19–24 Finally, whether arrhythmias explain palpitations in PASC is unknown beyond 3 months.25, 26 We designed the Long-Term Impact of Infection with Novel Coronavirus (LIINC) study (NCT 04362150) to evaluate physical and mental health following SARS-COV-2 infection by including individuals representing the full spectrum of acute illness (asymptomatic to severe) and post-acute-recovery (full recovery, symptomatic PASC).27 The purpose of this sub-study was to elucidate mechanisms underlying cardiopulmonary symptoms present more than 1 year following SARS-CoV-2 infection by comparing symptomatic and recovered individuals using blood-based markers, echocardiography, CMR, CPET, and ambulatory rhythm monitoring. ## Methods As previously reported, the LIINC study is a San Francisco-based post-COVID cohort that includes longitudinal symptom assessment.27 In a subset, we measured biomarkers and performed echocardiograms.9 Here we report findings from the subset who have undergone additional cross-sectional cardiopulmonary testing including CPET, CMR, and ambulatory rhythm monitoring. ### Participants LIINC participants with a history of nucleic-acid confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who had completed an echocardiogram study visit were offered participation in additional cardiopulmonary testing in order of date of infection (earliest first) irrespective of symptom status. Participants were excluded if they were pregnant or had a history of significant cardiopulmonary disease including congenital heart disease, heart failure, myocardial infarction, or heart surgery. Additionally, those with non-MRI compatible implants or claustrophobia were excluded from CMR; those with estimated GFR <30ml/min/1.73m2 were excluded from receiving gadolinium contrast. We excluded those unable to exercise on cycle ergometer from CPET. ### Symptoms Individuals were queried regarding 32 PASC symptoms and using the Patient Health Questionnaire Somatic Symptom Scale.27 At enrollment, participants completed a structured interview about medical history, characteristics of acute infection, cardiopulmonary diagnoses, and symptoms within the previous two weeks. We defined a composite symptom variable for cardiopulmonary PASC including chest pain, dyspnea, or palpitations (“cardiopulmonary symptoms”) in the preceding 2 weeks prior to the study visit and a general PASC composite that included cardiopulmonary symptoms and fatigue (“symptoms”).9 Consistent with the WHO definition, all participants had new symptoms without alternative cardiopulmonary explanations and were more than 3 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection.28 ### Echocardiography A cardiac sonographer blinded to patient data performed echocardiograms with a GE VIVID E90 machine at the first study visit using a standardized protocol. Post-processing and measurements were performed by a single echocardiographer using GE EchoPAC software according to ASE guidelines,29 as we have previously described.9 ### Blood-Based Measures Participants had venous blood collected and processed for serum and plasma on the day of the echocardiogram. Samples were batch processed for measurement of high sensitivity troponin I (hs-troponin; ADVIA Centaur® High-Sensitivity Troponin I (TNIH) assay), high sensitivity c-reactive protein (hsCRP; ADVIA® Chemistry CardioPhase™ High Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein assay), and N-terminal prohormone b-type natriuretic protein (NT-pro-BNP; Roche Cobas 6000 Elecsys® proBNP II assay). Most participants had antibodies and additional markers collected at two time points (<90 days and 90-150 days) after symptom onset analyzed by Monogram Biosciences (South San Francisco, CA) using the Quanterix Simoa® platform with Simoa® Assay Kits from Quanterix Corporation (Billerica, MA).30 These included interleukin 6 (IL-6), interleukin 10 (IL-10), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), neurofilament light chain (NfL), monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), interferon gamma (IFN-γ), and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), and SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) immunoglobulin G (IgG). Samples were assayed blinded with respect to patient and clinical information, and assay performance was consistent with the manufacturers’ specifications. Additionally, blood was drawn immediately prior to CMR for measurement of hematocrit for calculation of extracellular volume. ### Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Multiparametric, sequence-standardized, blinded (technician and reader) cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) was performed with a 3 Tesla system (Premier, General Electric). The protocol consisted of acquisition of the following sequences after multiplane localizers prior to gadolinium injection: fast imaging employing steady state acquisition (FIESTA) cine in the axial short axis planes, pre-contrast T1 mapping sequences using the MOLLI 5-(3)-3 technique, as well as pre-contrast T2 mapping at the basal, mid, and apical short axis planes and T2 fat-saturated weighted black blood spin-echo images in the short axis plane. 8-10 minutes after intravenous gadolinium injection, phase sensitive inversion recovery (PSIR) late gadolinium enhancement imaging in short axis full stack, 4 chamber full stack, three slices of 2 chamber images, and post-contrast T1 mapping sequences were obtained. Inversion times were individualized to null the myocardium. Measurements were performed by a single reader at a dedicated workstation using Medis (Leiden, Netherlands) and AI-assisted Arterys (San Francisco, CA) under supervision of a senior cardiac imager, both blinded to all clinical variables, and in accordance with Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance task force recommendations. Arterys software was used for T1 and T2 mapping and ECV calculation using pre- and post-contrast MOLLI sequences. ### Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing CPETs were performed by an experienced exercise physiologist and noninvasive cardiology nurse practitioner blinded to participant data according to standard protocol using a metabolic cart (Medical Graphics Corporation Ultima CardiO2) and supine cycle ergometer (Lode Corival CPET) with continuous 12 lead ECG monitoring (GE CASE) and noninvasive blood pressure and pulse oximetry measurement. First, baseline ECG, blood pressure, and rest spirometry including maximum voluntary ventilation (MVV) were measured. We determined the work increase per 1 minute step based on the expected peak VO2 from the MVV for a goal 10 minute test, rounded to 5 Watts/min increments based on reported exercise (range 10-30W/min) in accordance with guidelines.31 Participants underwent a 2-minute rest phase, 2-minute no resistance warm up, and then 1-minute steps. Breath-by-breath oxygen consumption (VO2) and carbon dioxide production (VCO2) were measured continuously. Participants were blinded to time, wattage, and peak VO2 during the test and encouraged to maintain a cadence of ~60 cycles per minute and exercise to their maximum ability, with the test stopped prematurely for severe hypertension, relative hypotension, moderate to severe angina, ventricular tachycardia or couplets, or ischemic changes. Reason for stopping and exertional symptoms were recorded. Exercise effort was assessed by Borg Scale and respiratory exchange ratio (RER). Anaerobic threshold was determined manually by the exercise physiologist using the slope method. CPETs were interpreted separately by two independent readers and differences in interpretation were discussed and resolved through consensus. We evaluated measured peak VO2 (in ml/kg/min) and used the Wasserman equations to estimate the percent predicted VO2 for each participant.32–34 We classified exercise capacity <85% predicted as reduced. We considered ventilatory limitation if rest spirometry was abnormal, tidal volume did not double over baseline reaching at least 50% of FVC, breathing reserve was <30%, dead space ratio (VD/VT) was >0.2, or desaturation occurred. We classified participants as having a cardiac limitation if there were ischemic ECG changes, the oxygen pulse was reduced and plateaued early, AT occurred at less than 40% of predicted maximal VO2, and if ventilatory efficiency slope (VE/VCO2) was <32. We defined an abnormal chronotropic response as <80% of the adjusted heart rate reserve (AHRR) calculated as (HRpeak-HRrest)/(220-age-HRrest).35 We considered exercise limitation to be likely due to deconditioning, obesity or impaired gas exchange if exercise capacity was reduced without cardiac or ventilatory limitation. ### Ambulatory Rhythm Monitoring After CMR, an ambulatory rhythm monitor (Carnation Ambulatory Monitor, BardyDx) was placed on the chest. Participants were instructed wear it for up to 2 weeks, press the button for cardiopulmonary symptoms, and record symptoms in a diary. Monitors were processed according to BardyDx standard procedures and reports were overread by a cardiologist. ### Statistical Design Adjusted models included potential confounders age, sex, time since SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, and body mass index. We used logistic regression to estimate associations of parameters with symptoms and linear regression to estimate adjusted mean differences between those parameters among participants with and without symptoms. For count outcomes (button pushes on rhythm monitoring), we used Poisson regression. Non-normally distributed variables (hsCRP, T1 mapping times, premature atrial contraction burden, for example) were log-transformed and findings are reported per doubling or per 10-fold change depending on the range of values. For biomarker data we report unadjusted Pearson’s rho correlation coefficients, adjusted linear regression models, and for longitudinal biomarker data we used mixed effects models with a random intercept per patient. We conducted sensitivity analyses considering other definitions of symptoms and additionally adjusting for potentially relevant past medical history and baseline echocardiographic and spirometry parameters. The study was approved by the UCSF Institutional Review Board (IRB 20-33000) and all participants provided written informed consent. REDCap was used for data entry. Statistical analyses were performed using STATA version 17.1. ## RESULTS ### Participant Characteristics Among 120 participants who completed Visit 1, 46 participants had at least one advanced test performed. The median age was 52 (IQR 42-61), 18 (39%) were female, and 6 (13%) were hospitalized (Table 1). Two notable differences between the subset who underwent advanced testing were earlier date of infection (p<0.001) and a lower proportion with HIV (p=0.06). As most individuals were infected between March and September 2020, no participants had been vaccinated at the time of initial infection, but all had received at least one SARS-CoV-2 vaccine prior to advanced testing. View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/01/2022.05.17.22275235/T1) Table 1: Baseline Characteristics for Participants with Advanced Cardiac Testing (n=46) **Table 1 Legend:** Demographic information, past medical history, and severity of acute COVID-19 by hospitalization/ICU status of the participants who underwent advanced cardiopulmonary testing. Abbreviations: BMI=body mass index, ICU=intensive care unit ### Symptoms Persist at 18 Months At visit 1 (median 6 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection), 73/120 (61%) reported PASC symptoms and 56/120 (47%) reported cardiopulmonary symptoms (chest pain, dyspnea, or palpitations). At visit 2 (median 17.0 months), 25/47 (53%) reported PASC symptoms and 19/47 (40%) reported cardiopulmonary symptoms. Among the 25 individuals with symptoms at visit 2, 20 had reported symptoms at visit 1, and 5 developed new symptoms between visits. Nine people reported resolution of symptoms by visit 2. Individual symptom patterns were similar (Supplemental Table 1). Reporting reduced exercise capacity was associated with reporting other cardiopulmonary symptoms (OR 8.04, 95%CI 1.94-33.3; p=0.004); 78% versus 32% with preserved or improved exercise capacity had cardiopulmonary symptoms (p=0.003). ### CPETs were Maximal Tests Out of 40 participants who attended a CPET visit, 39 completed CPET at a median 17.5 months (IQR 15.5-18.4) after SARS-CoV-2 infection (one excluded due to hypertensive urgency). Two CPETs (one with and one without symptoms) were stopped early for hypertensive response after predicted heart rate and exercise capacity were reached but before symptomatic limitation. All other tests were completed to symptom-limited maximal exertion. All tests had a respiratory exchange ratio (RER) >1.05 with no difference in RER achieved by symptom status. No participants were taking beta blockers, non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, or ivabradine at the time of CPET. ### Reduced Exercise Capacity on CPET Overall, 15/39 (38%) participants had reduced exercise capacity (peak VO2 <85% predicted). Among those with PASC symptoms, 13/23 (57%) had reduced exercise capacity compared to 2/16 (13%) without symptoms (p=0.008 by Fisher’s exact test). The odds of reduced exercise capacity were 3.0 times higher for cardiopulmonary symptoms (95%CI 0.8-11.4; p=0.11) and 9.1 times higher for PASC symptoms (95%CI 1.7 to 49.6; p=0.01). Objectively reduced exercise capacity on CPET was associated with 25 times higher odds of PASC symptoms compared to preserved exercise capacity (95%CI 2.1 to 303; p=0.01). As shown in Figure 1, peak VO2 was 21.2±8.2 ml/kg/min among those with symptoms and 28.8±7.7 among those without symptoms, a difference of −7.6 (95%CI −12.9 to −2.3; p=0.006) or 89% versus 111% percent predicted (−22.1% predicted, 95%CI −36.5 to −7.7; p=0.003). The adjusted difference in peak VO2 was −5.9 ml/kg/min (95%CI −9.6 to −2.3; p=0.002) or −21% predicted (95%CI −35 to −7; p=0.006). Results were unchanged in sensitivity analyses accounting for history of asthma/COPD and hypertension, resting spirometry (FVC, FEV1, MVV), and baseline echocardiogram (LVEF, LV diastolic function, LV strain, RV strain, and TAPSE) with point estimates ranging from −4.4 to −7.9 ml/kg/min and no confidence intervals crossing 0. The difference in peak VO2 was smaller among those reporting only cardiopulmonary symptoms: 2.7 ml/kg/min lower (95%CI −6.9 to 1.5; p=0.20; Supplemental Table 2). ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/01/2022.05.17.22275235/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/01/2022.05.17.22275235/F1) Figure 1. Exercise Capacity by PASC Symptoms and by HR Response to Exercise (n=39) **Figure 1 Legend:** On the top row are box and whisker plots of peak oxygen consumption (VO2 in ml/kg/min on the left and percent of predicted on the right) among those without (blue) and with chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, or fatigue (pink). Peak VO2<85% was associated with PASC symptoms (OR 25.0, 95%CI 2.1 to 303; p=0.01). Mean peak VO2 was 21.2±8.2 ml/kg/min among those with symptoms compared to 28.8±7.7 ml/kg/min among those without symptoms, a difference of −7.6 ml/kg/min (95%CI −12.9 to −2.3; p=0.006) or 89% vs 111% percent predicted (difference −22.1, 95%CI −36.5 to −7.7; p=0.003). After adjustment for age, sex, hospitalization for acute COVID-19, BMI category, and months since SARS-CoV-2 infection, peak VO2 was 5.9 ml/kg/min lower among those with versus without symptoms (95%CI −9.6 to −2.3; p=0.002) or −21% (95%CI −35 to −7; p=0.006). On the bottom row are peak VO2 (ml/kg/min on the left and percent predicted on the right) by reaching an AHRR >80% (normal chronotropic response to exercise) or <80% (blunted chronotropic response to exercise). Not reaching adjusted heart rate reserve >80% during CPET was associated with 15.6x higher odds of having reduced exercise capacity <85% predicted (95%CI 1.30-187; p=0.03). As shown in Table 2, the work completed was lower and perceived effort was higher among those with symptoms, even though the respiratory exchange ratio (an objective measure of reaching a maximal test) was similar. There were no significant differences on rest echocardiography (Supplemental Table 3) or spirometry (Supplemental Table 4), and most CPET parameters were not significantly associated with symptoms (Table 2). Reaching anaerobic threshold at a lower VO2, but not as a percent of predicted peak VO2, was associated with symptoms. View this table: [Supplemental Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/01/2022.05.17.22275235/T4) Supplemental Table 1: Symptom pattern by individual symptoms **Supplemental Table 1 Legend:** Trajectory of Symptoms by specific symptoms and whether they were never reported, reported at first visit and resolved prior to second visit, developed after the first visit, or were persistent. View this table: [Supplemental Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/01/2022.05.17.22275235/T5) Supplemental Table 2. Differences in Peak VO2 by Different Means of Classifying Symptoms **Supplemental Table 2 Legend:** Sensitivity analysis of peak VO2 (ml/kg/min and % predicted) using different definitions of PASC. N listed for the number with that symptom finding. View this table: [Supplemental Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/01/2022.05.17.22275235/T6) Supplemental Table 3. Echocardiographic Parameters at a Median 6 months after Infection by Presence of Cardiopulmonary Symptoms **Supplemental Table 3 Legend:** Echocardiographic parameters by cardiopulmonary symptom status at echo visit (median 6 months). Odds ratios are adjusted for age, sex, time since SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization for COVID-19; no change in sensitivity analysis additionally adjusting for medical history. View this table: [Supplemental Table 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/01/2022.05.17.22275235/T7) Supplemental Table 4: Rest Spirometry by Presence of Cardiopulmonary Symptoms **Supplemental Table 4 Legend:** Rest spirometry parameters by symptom status at CPET. Odds ratios are adjusted for age, sex, time since SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization for COVID-19, and Asthma/COPD; no change in sensitivity analysis additionally adjusting for additional medical history. View this table: [Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/01/2022.05.17.22275235/T2) Table 2: Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing Parameters by Symptom Status (n=39) **Table 2 Legend:** We present both the odds ratios for the association between CPET parameters and symptoms estimated using logistic regression with adjustment for age, sex, time since COVID, hospitalization for acute COVID, BMI category and the estimated adjusted mean differences between those with and without symptoms using linear regression adjusting for the same covariates. Sensitivity analysis incorporating history of hypertension, diabetes, and lung disease had no substantive changes in effect sizes or confidence intervals. Sensitivity analyses using only cardiopulmonary symptoms are shown in Supplemental Table 6: notably there is an earlier anaerobic threshold among those with only cardiopulmonary symptoms. aVE/VCO2 slope could not be determined for one participant without symptoms. Abbreviations: AT=Anearobic threshold; bpm=beats per minute; FVC=Forced Vital Capacity; HR=heart rate; DBP=diastolic blood pressure; MVV=maximal voluntary ventilation; SBP=systolic blood pressure; VD/VT=Dead space ratio; VE = minute ventilation; VCO2=carbon dioxide production; pVO2=peak oxygen consumption (VO2); Vent=Ventilatory. View this table: [Supplemental Table 5:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/01/2022.05.17.22275235/T8) Supplemental Table 5: Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing Parameters by Symptom Status (n=39) **Supplemental Table 6 Legend:** In sensitivity analysis including only those with cardiopulmonary symptoms, the main difference in findings is that an early anaerobic threshold as percent of predicted VO2 was associated with cardiopulmonary symptoms. The difference in peak VO2 was no longer statistically significant. View this table: [Supplemental Table 6:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/01/2022.05.17.22275235/T9) Supplemental Table 6: Cardiac MRI Findings and Association with Cardiopulmonary Symptoms (n=39) **Supplemental Table 7 Legend:** Smaller RV volumes and stroke volume were associated with cardiopulmonary symptoms, which can be seen in deconditioning. However, LV Mass index was not significantly lower among those with cardiopulmonary symptoms, and there was no difference incorporating hypertension in the models. Extracellular volume was slightly higher among those with symptoms, similar to when patients with only fatigue were included as symptomatic. View this table: [Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/01/2022.05.17.22275235/T3) Table 3. Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Parameters (n=39) by Symptom Status **Table 3 Legend:** CMR parameters by cardiopulmonary symptoms given as mean±SD or median [intraquartile range] for non-normally distributed variables. Logistic regression was used to estimated odds of having symptoms for a given change in each parameter adjusted for age, sex, BMI category, hospitalization, and time since infection and linear regression was used to estimate mean differences between those with and without symptoms adjusted for the same likely confounders. Abbreviations: LVEDi=Left ventricular end diastolic volume indexed to body surface area; LVESi=Left ventricular end diastolic volume indexed to body surface area; LVEF=left ventricular ejection fraction; RVEDi=Right ventricular end diastolic volume indexed to body surface area; RVESi=Right ventricular end diastolic volume indexed to body surface area; RVEF=Right ventricular Ejection Fraction. aLV stroke volumes are reported but there is a high correlation between LV and RV stroke volumes (Pearson’s r=0.96). T1 mapping time was log transformed and then the difference was exponentiated. ### Classification of Reduced Exercise Capacity by Pattern of CPET Findings A higher dead space ratio at peak exertion was associated with symptoms, but no participants had a ventilatory limitation. One participant had a cardiac limitation (reduced oxygen pulse pressure and ischemic ECG changes), and one had a hypertensive response. One participant’s peak VO2 was slightly below 85% predicted with no other abnormalities (which could be deconditioning), and three participants had findings most consistent with deconditioning/obesity. Among participants with reduced exercise capacity (<85% predicted), 9/15 (60%) had chronotropic incompetence with an adjusted heart rate reserve (AHRR) <80% and peak heart rate <85% age predicted maximum. One participant’s CPET pattern was most consistent with obesity/deconditioning, but AHRR=80%; we did not classify that participant as having chronotropic incompetence. ### Chronotropic Incompetence on CPET Nineteen participants had AHRR<80%, which was associated with reduced exercise capacity (OR 15.6, 95%CI 1.30-187; p=0.03) and 4.9 ml/kg/min lower peak VO2 (95%CI CI −9.3 to −0.5; p=0.03). Those with chronotropic incompetence had much lower peak heart rate (117±10 bpm) compared to those with normal peak VO2 and HR (168±13), an adjusted difference of 48 bpm (95%CI 39 to 56; p<0.001; Supplemental Figure 1). Chronotropic incompetence was associated with 6.4 ml/kg/min lower peak VO2 (95%CI −11.3 to −1.6; p=0.01), a large and clinically meaningful difference. Compared to individuals with normal peak VO2 and HR, chronotropic incompetence was associated with reduced heart rate recovery at 1 minute after cessation of exercise (adjusted difference −8.7, 95%CI −15.6 to −1.7; p=0.02). Although achieving adequate heart rate can be a measure of maximal effort, the respiratory exchange ratio was not lower (difference 0.04, 95%CI −0.02 to 12; p=0.19) and the Borg effort was the same (difference −0.2, 95%CI −1.8 to 1.5; p=0.85) among those with chronotropic incompetence. ![Supplemental Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/01/2022.05.17.22275235/F5.medium.gif) [Supplemental Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/01/2022.05.17.22275235/F5) Supplemental Figure 1. Heart Rate during Exercise by Chronotropic Response to Exercise **Supplemental Figure 1 Legend**: Mean heart rate is plotted as a function of exercise time normalized to percent of predicted peak VO2: in purple are those with normal exercise capacity (peak VO2 >85% predicted and normal heart rate response (n=16), in teal are those with normal exercise capacity (peak VO2>85%; n=8) and blunted heart rate response (AHRR<80%; n=8), and in yellow are those with chronotropic incompetence (n=9), as described in Supplemental Table 8. ### Normal Cardiac Structure and Function on CMR One participant was not administered gadolinium due to eGFR<30, and 3 participants could not complete CMR due to claustrophobia. CMR demonstrated normal LV and RV volumes and ejection fraction in all participants (n=39, Table 4). Higher extracellular volume was associated with symptoms, but no participants had late gadolinium enhancement suggestive of myocardial scar, and other markers suggestive of cardiac inflammation including native T1 and T2 parametric mapping values were not associated with symptoms. A high proportion of participants (11/39, 28%) had trace or small pericardial effusions with no difference by symptom status. Smaller RV end diastolic volume index and smaller stroke volume were associated with cardiopulmonary symptoms (Supplemental Table 6). Those with chronotropic incompetence had lower stroke volume at rest (−19ml, 95%CI −34 to −3; p=0.02) and higher extracellular volume (6.2%, 95%CI 0.7 to 11.7; p=0.03). ### No Arrythmias on Ambulatory Rhythm Monitoring There were no clinically significant arrhythmias including atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter on ambulatory rhythm monitoring (Supplemental Table 7). There were no statistically significant differences in premature atrial contractions (PAC), premature ventricular contractions (PVC), sinus tachycardia, or supraventricular tachycardias (SVT) by symptom status. Most participants had no PVCs, so we could not exclude meaningful increases in PVC burden given wide confidence intervals. Symptomatic individuals pressed the button 3.3 times more often (95%CI 2.3-4.8; p<0.001). Most button pushes were during sinus rhythm, sinus tachycardia, or supraventricular ectopy (Supplemental Figure 2), except in one participant with PASC in whom button pushes correlated with brief episodes of SVT. Results were similar in sensitivity analyses adjusting for echocardiographic parameters including LVEF, LV strain, and LA volume index. View this table: [Supplemental Table 7:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/01/2022.05.17.22275235/T10) Supplemental Table 7: Ambulatory Rhythm Monitoring Findings by Symptoms (n=38) **Table 4 Legend.** Values are reported as mean±SD or median (interquartile range) for non-normally distributed variables assessed by histogram. The only statistically significant difference between those with and without symptoms was the number of button pushes, which was 2.4 time more among those with symptoms (95CI% 1.7-3.4; p<0.001), and lower maximum sinus heart rate consistent with chronotropic incompetence among those with symptoms. One participant had SVT that correlated with palpitations by patient diary, but no episodes were sustained longer than 30 second. Results were similar in sensitivity analysis when only cardiopulmonary symptoms (n=14) palpitations (n=10) were considered (not shown). ![Supplemental Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/01/2022.05.17.22275235/F6.medium.gif) [Supplemental Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/01/2022.05.17.22275235/F6) Supplemental Figure 2. Cardiac Rhythms During Button Pushes (n=37) **Supplemental Figure 1 Legend**: Individual participant analysis of number of button pushes and assocaited rhythm with each participant on the x axis and the number of times that individual pushed the symptom button on the y axis with each identified rhythm coded by color. Most button pushes were associated with sinus rhythm or sinus tachycardia, with supraventricular ectopy (premature atrial contractions) present among a few individuals especially the 3 with the most button pushes. ![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/01/2022.05.17.22275235/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/01/2022.05.17.22275235/F2) Figure 2. Correlations between Peak VO2 and Previously Measured Biomarkers **Figure 2 Legend.** Scatterplots and linear trend lines of peak VO2 by natural log of biomarkers including hsCRP (n=36, median 6 months after infection), hs-Troponin I (n=36, median 6 months after infection), NT-Pro-BNP (n=30, median 6 months after infection), IL-6 (n=33, median 3.5 months after infection), TNF-α (n=33, median 3.5 months after infection), and SARS-CoV-2 Receptor Binding Domain IgG Antibody Level (n=32, median 3.5 months after infection) with unadjusted Pearson’s rho correlations and p-values listed. On unadjusted analysis, hsCRP, IL-6, TNF-α and SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels were highly correlated with peak VO2, but not hs-Troponin I or NT-pro-BNP. After adjustment for age, sex, BMI, and time of testing, per doubling of biomarker level: peak VO2 was −2.1 ml/kg/min for hsCRP (95%CI −3.4 to −0.8; p=0.003), −6.4ml/kg/min for TNF-alpha (95%CI −12.3 to −0.4; p=0.04), −2.2 ml/kg/min for IL-6 (95%CI −4.7 to 0.4; p=0.10), and −1.1 ml/kg/min for antibody levels (95%CI −2.5 to 0.3; p=0.13). ### Ambulatory Rhythm Monitoring Correlates of Chronotropic Incompetence on CPET Peak heart rate during CPET correlated with maximum sinus heart rate during ambulatory rhythm monitoring (Pearson’s r=0.73; p<0.001), with an adjusted difference between those with and without chronotropic incompetence of 24 bpm (95%CI 6-41; p=0.01). On ambulatory rhythm monitoring, those with chronotropic incompetence during CPET had a higher average heart rate, higher minimum heart rate, lower maximum heart rate, and lower heart rate variability (Supplemental Table 8). PR intervals were not significantly longer among those with chronotropic incompetence (174ms vs 162ms, +12ms, 95%CI −4 to +27; p=0.13), and no individuals had 2nd or 3rd degree heart block. View this table: [Supplemental Table 8:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/01/2022.05.17.22275235/T11) Supplemental Table 8: Heart Rate Parameters by Chronotropy and Exercise Capacity Supplemental Table 8 Legend. **Table 5 Legend:** The first row of each measure is the mean±SD for those with chronotropic incompetence (“CI”, VO2 <85%, AHRR<80%, and no alternative findings, n=9); the second row is the mean±SD for those with a reduced chronotropic response (VO2 ≥85% and AHRR<80%, n=8) and the third row is those with peak VO2 ≥85% and AHRR≥80% (n=16). Adjusted differences are compared to those with normal exercise capacity and heart rate response during exercise, and those with alternative explanations for reduced exercise capacity were excluded. Results were similar whether considering absolute heart rate, percent of age predicted, or adjusted heart rate reserve for both CPET and ambulatory measurements so only Abbreviations: HR=heart rate, bpm=beats per minute, CI=chronotropic incompetence, AHRR=adjusted heart rate reserve, SDNN=standard deviation n-to-n. ### Markers of Inflammation, Not Cardiac Biomarkers, Early in PASC Trajectory are Associated with Reduced Exercise Capacity and Pericardial Effusions More than 1 Year Later As shown in Figure 2, markers of inflammation in the blood (hsCRP, IL-6, TNF-α) and SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG level measured at 3-9 months after infection are highly negatively correlated with peak VO2 more than one year after infection. Cardiac biomarkers, hs-troponin I and NT-pro-BNP, were not associated with peak VO2. After adjustment, peak VO2 was 1.8 ml/kg/min lower per doubling of hsCRP (95%CI −3.3 to −0.2; p=0.03) and 6.4 ml/kg/min lower per doubling of TNF-α (95%CI −12.3 to −0.4; 95%CI p=0.04) with similar but non-statistically significant differences for IL-6 (−2.2, 95%CI −4.7 to 0.4; p=0.10) and SARS-CoV-2 IgG (−1.1, 95%CI −2.4 to 0.3; p=0.12). The odds of pericardial effusion on CMR were 1.8 times higher per doubling of hsCRP (95%CI 1.09-2.92; p=0.02). Adjusted results for associations between pericardial effusions and IL-6, TNF-α and SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG at the later time point were not statistically significant, although the confidence intervals do not exclude an effect. There were no significant associations between ECV and inflammatory biomarkers. Longitudinal serum biomarkers of inflammation, neurologic injury, and SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG were measured at <90 days from SARS-CoV-2 acute infection (median 52 days from symptom onset) and between 90-150 days (median 124 days from symptom onset) in 34 participants who underwent CPET (Figure 3). Among those with reduced compared to preserved exercise capacity, SARS-CoV-2 IgG (3.00-fold higher mean ratio, 95%CI 1.31-6.88; p=0.009) and TNF-α (1.42-fold higher mean ratio, 95%CI 1.16-1.73; p=0.001) were significantly higher at the early time point (<90 days) with similar patterns in MCP-1 (1.26-fold higher mean ratio, 95%CI 0.99-1.60; p=0.06) and IL-10 (1.23-fold higher mean ratio, 95%CI 0.92-1.65; p=0.17) that were not statistically significant. At the second time point (90-150 days), IL-6 (1.39-fold higher mean ratio, 95%CI 0.93-2.07; p=0.11), (1.19-fold higher mean ratio, 95%CI 0.99-1.43; p=0.06) and SARS-CoV-2 IgG (2.03-fold higher mean ratio, 95%CI 0.90-4.55; p=0.09) were elevated although confidence intervals cross 1 when exercise capacity is dichotomized. All biomarkers decreased over time regardless of eventual exercise capacity, except for IL-6, which increased among those with reduced exercise capacity. Among the neurologic markers, GFAP was lower at the second time point (0.72-fold higher mean ratio, 95%CI 0.51-1.00; p=0.049) and NfL was not different by group at either time point. ![Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/01/2022.05.17.22275235/F3.medium.gif) [Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/01/2022.05.17.22275235/F3) Figure 3. Change in Biomarkers During the Early Post-Infection Period among those with Reduced versus Perserved Exercise Capacity at ~17 months After Infection (n=32) **Figure 3 Legend:** Mean ± standard error for serum biomarkers measured at <90 days from SARS-CoV-2 acute infection (median 52 days from symptom onset) and between 90-150 days (median 124 days from symptom onset) in 32 participants who underwent CPET. Biomarkers include interleukin 6 (Il-6), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), neurofilament light chain (NFL), monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, interferon gamma [IFN-γ], Interleukin 10 (IL-10), tumor necrosis factor alpha [TNF-α], and SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) immunoglobulin G (IgG). Markers of inflammation decreased over time in both groups, except for IL-6, which increased among those with reduced exercise capacity. MCP-1, TNF-α, and IgG were higher at the early time point among those with reduced exercise capacity. TNF-α and IgG remained significantly elevated, and GFAP became significantly lower at the second time point among those with reduced exercise capacity. ## Discussion We demonstrate that clinically significant reductions in objective exercise capacity are associated with PASC symptoms more than 1 year after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. We found elevated inflammatory markers and SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels early in PASC are associated with reduced exercise capacity more than 1 year after infection. Our findings suggest that chronotropic incompetence is a likely mechanism of reduced exercise capacity for some individuals with PASC. Other than pericardial effusions and increased extracellular volume, we did not find evidence of myocarditis or cardiac dysfunction on echocardiography or cardiac MRI, nor evidence of arrhythmias on ambulatory rhythm monitoring. Our study validates that CPET allows objective measurement of what many people subjectively experience after SARS-CoV-2 infection and therefore may be a useful tool to identify the underlying pathophysiology of PASC. ### Connections between Inflammation, Reduced Exercise Capacity, and Autonomic Responses One other group previously demonstrated that hsCRP, IL-6, and TNF-α are associated with reduced peak VO2 three months after COVID-19 hospitalization.36 Our findings suggest that higher levels of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and inflammation during the early post-acute period are associated with lower peak VO2 more than a year later. Elevated inflammatory markers, especially hsCRP, IL-6, and TNF-α could be due to higher severity of acute illness,37 persistent immune activation,38 and/or ongoing antigen stimulation from viral persistence.39–43 The correlation between these markers and peak VO2 could arise from a common cause of PASC, or these markers could be on the causal path from SARS-CoV-2 infection to symptoms and reduced exercise capacity in Long COVID (Figure 4). Multiple studies have demonstrated that IL-6 may be elevated in PASC.30, 38, 44, 45 Intriguingly, in our study only IL-6 did not decrease among individuals who eventually had reduced exercise capacity. Apart from COVID-19, IL-6 impairs chronotropic responses to autonomic signaling in mice46 and may regulate energy allocation during exercise.47 IL-6 and TNF-α also impair endothelial function in animal models via increasing oxidative stress and suppressing endothelial nitric oxide synthase pathways.48 Endothelial and coronary microvascular dysfunction are associated with chronotropic incompetence in the general population49–51 and have been demonstrated in early PASC.52–54 Endothelial dysfunction may be associated with reduced VO2 in PASC;55 this could be due to endothelial injury from direct viral infection, or due to effects of persistent inflammation and immune activation.56 Elevated inflammation resulting in changes in autonomic function in PASC could explain reduced exercise capacity, chronotropic incompetence, blunted heart rate recovery, reduced heart rate variability and CPET findings others have noted in PASC including altered peripheral oxygen extraction,57 preload failure58 or inadequate stroke volume augmentation,23, 24 and disordered breathing.58–60 ![Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/01/2022.05.17.22275235/F4.medium.gif) [Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/01/2022.05.17.22275235/F4) Figure 4. Proposed Mechanisms of Reduced Exercise Capacity and Cardiopulmonary Symptoms in Post-Acute COVID-19 **Figure 4 Legend:** Figure made with biorender.com. We found that higher inflammatory markers (hsCRP, MCP-1, TNF-α) and SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain IgG antibody levels measured within the first six months after infection are associated with reduced exercise capacity measured on cardiopulmonary exercise testing more than 1 year after infection. We propose that persistent immune activation and systemic inflammation may cause a dysregulated response to autonomic signaling that many manifest as chronotropic incompetence and cause reduced exercise capacity and symptoms of Long COVID. ### Autonomic Function, Sinus Node Function, and Inflammation in PASC Altered autonomic function is the most likely unifying explanation for the constellation of findings we observed. SARS-CoV-2 may lead to damage of the peripheral autonomic nerve fibers as sequalae of direct viral infection, secondary inflammation of the nerves, autoimmune neuropathy, or alterations in central nervous system regulation. Skin biopsies suggest small fiber neuropathy among those with COVID-19 associated postural-orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and abnormal autonomic testing.61, 62 Similar to preload failure pathophysiology in POTS, autonomic reflexes govern regulation of preload during exercise.63 Autonomic dysfunction could also occur via infection of autonomic regulatory regions in the brainstem,64 or through changes in the amygdala evident on longitudinal pre- and post-infection brain MRIs.65 We have previously demonstrated abnormal markers of neurologic injury in PASC in serum44 and cerebrospinal fluid.66 Alternatively, sinus node remodeling has been hypothesized to reduce sinus node reserve in heart failure,67 and SARS-CoV-2 may directly affect sinus node function. SARS-CoV-2 can infect sinoatrial node cells in hamsters and *in vitro* sinoatrial-like pacemaker cells resulting in sinoatrial node-dysfunction including changes in calcium handling, activated inflammatory pathways, and induced ferroptosis.68 Although we did not find evidence of fibrosis on CMR or evidence of sinus node dysfunction on ambulatory rhythm monitoring or during CPET (i.e. sinus pauses, Wenckebach, blocked PACs), sinus node dysfunction could explain chronotropic incompetence. Inflammation also modifies autonomic and chronotropic responses. Young adults recovering from SARS-CoV-2 have elevated sympathetic activation at rest compared to healthy controls.69 Chronic inflammation in other conditions including obesity and heart failure is associated with imbalance between parasympathetic and sympathetic activation manifest in changes in heart rate variability, reduced exercise capacity and chronotropic incompetence.49, 70–72 In heart failure, chronotropic incompetence during exercise is negatively correlated with copeptin (C-terminal portion of arginine) and norepinephrine levels.73 FDG-PET studies suggest vascular inflammation74 and cardiac inflammation75 may be present in early PASC, consistent with findings of elevated inflammatory markers. Systemic inflammation in the setting of stress (as evidenced in the association between amygdalar activity and bone-marrow/arterial inflammation)76 has been implicated in the pathophysiology of health disparities77, 78 and post-traumatic stress disorder.79 Thus, inflammatory responses to direct viral infection, chronic immune activation, localized cardiovascular inflammation, or from the distressing nature of persistent symptoms could alter exertional heart rate augmentation in PASC even without damage to the autonomic nervous system or the sinus node. ### Other Studies of PASC using CPET Our study is consistent with six studies that have reported lower peak VO2 among those with PASC compared to recovered individuals at 3-6 months after COVID-19.19–24 Our findings build upon earlier studies by (1) demonstrating reduced peak VO2 and chronotropic incompetence much later after infection than other published studies, (2) also including evaluation of cardiac inflammation, structural heart disease and cardiovascular arrhythmias, (3) adjusting for likely confounders in our models, (4) including recovered persons as comparators, and (5) and demonstrating associations with higher inflammatory markers early in PASC. These studies, together with studies that included SARS-CoV-2 uninfected controls and case-studies without controls, have not reached consistent conclusions regarding patterns of reduced exercise capacity. Inconsistency in categorizing exercise-limitation patterns may arise because of selection bias and confounding, the presence of multiple contributing mechanisms, and use of different interpretation algorithms, CPET protocols and adjunctive testing. Deconditioning is commonly reported, perhaps because most studies predominantly included hospitalized individuals and even non-hospitalized individuals experience deconditioning after illness.22, 80–84 Although we observed findings consistent with deconditioning or obesity in a few individuals (earlier anaerobic threshold, accelerated heart rate response), our findings argue against deconditioning as the primary explanation. Identifying deconditioning as a cause is challenging because it is also an effect of reduced habitual exercise among symptomatic individuals. Four other studies have also found that chronotropic incompetence contributes to exercise limitations in PASC.23, 85–87 Similarly, “dysautonomia” defined by heart rate parameters was associated with lower peak VO2 in PASC.87 Chronotropic incompetence is not a universal finding in PASC; some exercise protocols make ascertainment of chronotropic incompetence difficult, sensitivity and specificity vary with exercise modality, and including sub-maximal tests or patients on beta-blockers reduces specificity. Nonetheless, recognition of chronotropic incompetence provides insight into the pathophysiology of PASC. Diagnosis of chronotropic incompetence may have prognostic implications: chronotropic incompetence is associated with incident cardiovascular disease, sudden death, and all-cause mortality among men without known coronary artery disease.88–90 Impaired peripheral oxygen extraction (assessed using invasive CPET) may also contribute to exercise limitations in PASC,57 perhaps via changes in autonomic regulation of microcirculatory function.91 We did not find differences in VO2/work slope, a noninvasive correlate of measured oxygen extraction. Although more common in PASC than in recovered individuals, ventilatory limitation is uncommon21 and only one study has reported ventilatory inefficiency or ventilation/perfusion mismatch from pulmonary vasculopathy.20 Although not observed among any of our participants, dysfunctional (rapid, erratic) breathing or exercise hyperventilation may contribute to dyspnea in PASC as a manifestation of autonomic dysfunction.58–60 ### CMR and Ambulatory Rhythm Monitoring Findings Multiple studies have found CMR findings suggestive of myocarditis without cardiac dysfunction in the early post-acute period.15, 92, 93 Consistent with other studies at later time points,16, 19 our study reassuringly did not find evidence of abnormal cardiac function or late gadolinium enhancement suggestive of scar. We found higher ECV among those with symptoms, but not significant differences in native parametric mapping times nor associations with inflammatory markers early in PASC, and the clinical meaning of this isolated finding is uncertain. Our findings are consistent with two studies that did not find significant arrhythmias in early PASC and had inconsistent results regarding PVCs.25, 26 A high prevalence of inappropriate sinus tachycardia has been reported in early PASC;94 we only identified one individual (without cardiopulmonary symptoms) with resting heart rate >100 bpm and average sinus rate >90 bpm on ambulatory monitoring. Therefore, arrhythmias or inappropriate sinus tachycardia are unlikely to explain symptoms among most individuals with PASC. ### Implications for Therapy Investigation into mechanisms of PASC may benefit from proof-of-concept approaches to identify potential targets for intervention. Given associations with elevated inflammatory markers, targeting inflammatory pathways is worthy of investigation, although whether such interventions can improve exercise capacity, restore autonomic nervous system function, or improve symptoms remains unknown and needs to be tested rigorously. In those with chronotropic incompetence separate from COVID-19 without cardiac implantable devices, exercise is the only intervention demonstrated to improve chronotropic incompetence and improve peak VO2.95 In heart failure, exercise also improves surrogates of autonomic function including heart rate recovery and heart rate variability.96, 97 Exercise is an effective treatment for POTS, which may also be related to autonomic responses to stress and has been observed in PASC.98, 99 ### Limitations The main limitations of this observational study arise from the non-probabilistic sampling strategy, which is prone to selection bias, and the cross-sectional nature of cardiac measures. The first challenge is the classification of PASC—the statistical significance and magnitude of the difference in peak VO2 was sensitive to how we defined PASC, but our definition is consistent with current consensus definitions.28 Although participants were not selected based on symptoms, volunteer bias may overestimate the prevalence of reduced exercise capacity and possibly the magnitude of the difference, but should not affect classification of limitation patterns or identification of chronotropic incompetence. We did not include an uninfected comparator group, which could have strengthened our ability to make inferences regardless of symptom definition. As others using CPET have noted, selecting an appropriate control group can be challenging. We do not have pre-infection exercise tests and prior fitness is associated with post-infection peak VO2; if fitness is associated with risk of PASC, it would be an unmeasured confounder. Although we adjusted for important measured confounders and conducted sensitivity analyses adjusting for potential confounders, there are likely residual confounders (including unmeasured ones like pre-COVID fitness). In terms of measurement, we did not perform invasive CPET, stress echocardiography, stress CMR, or stress ventriculography. Lastly, we did not have contemporaneous biomarker data with CPETs to ascertain whether a hit-and-run transient inflammatory process or ongoing inflammation is more likely. ### Conclusions In conclusion, we found that reduced exercise capacity on CPET is associated with symptoms of PASC at 18 months following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Reduced exercise capacity in PASC is associated with chronotropic incompetence and higher levels of inflammatory markers and antibody levels in the early post-acute period. While a significant proportion had pericardial effusions (also associated with hsCRP) and increased extracellular volume fraction was associated with symptoms, we did not find strong evidence of prior or ongoing myocarditis. Further investigation into mechanisms of cardiopulmonary PASC should include evaluation of inflammatory pathways, chronotropic function, and the autonomic nervous system to identify potential therapeutic targets. ## Abbreviations list PASC (post-acute sequelae of COVID-19); hsCRP=high sensitivity c-reactive protein; LIINC=Long-term Impact of Infection with Novel Coronavirus; LV=left ventricle; RV=right ventricle; cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET); cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR); adjusted heart rate reserve (AHRR); ECG=electrocardiogram; premature atrial contraction (PAC); premature ventricular contraction (PVC); supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) POTS=postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome; ## Data Availability All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors. ## Funding This study was funded by philanthropic gifts from Charles W. Swanson and the Ed and Pearl Fein Foundation, research grants from the NIH/NLBI including L30 HL159695 and K12 HL143961, and internal funds from the Division of Cardiology at Zuckerberg San Francisco General. This work was assisted in part by a CFAR-ARI Boost Award from the UCSF AIDS Research Institute. MSD is supported by K12HL143961. MJP is supported by K23AI157875. JDK is supported by NIH/NIAID K23AI135037. TJH is supported by NIH/NIAID 3R01A1141003-03S1. PYH is supported by NIH/NAID 2K24AI112393-06. This publication was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through UCSF-CTSI Grant Number UL1TR001872. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. ## Disclosures AC, BCY, JWW, and CJP are employees of Monogram Biosciences, Inc., a division of LabCorp. PYH has received modest honoraria from Gilead and Merck and research grant from Novartis unrelated to the submitted work. All other authors report no disclosures or conflicts. ## Acknowledgements We would like to thank the research participants and the members of the LIINC study team. We would like to thank Dr. Kara Lynch and Dr. Alan Wu for their assistance with measuring cardiac biomarkers and hsCRP. We would also like to acknowledge support from Jeremy Lambert from Quanterix (Billerica, MA) and Patrick Kaiser from BardyDx, a division of Hillrom (Bellevue, Washington). We acknowledge the contributions of the UCSF Clinical and Translational Science Unit. ## Footnotes * Presented in part as a late breaking oral presentation at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, February 15, 2022, and as an oral presentation at the Heart Rhythm Society 2022 on May 1, 2022. * This version of the manuscript has been revised to incorporate longitudinal biomarker analyses that were not completed when the previous version of the manuscript was uploaded and additional authors who contributed to these analyses are now included. Figures significantly revised including new Figures 2-4. * Received May 17, 2022. * Revision received May 31, 2022. * Accepted June 1, 2022. * © 2022, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission. ## References 1. 1.Groff D, Sun A, Ssentongo AE, Ba DM, Parsons N, Poudel GR, Lekoubou A, Oh JS, Ericson JE, Ssentongo P and Chinchilli VM. Short-term and Long-term Rates of Postacute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Systematic Review. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4:e2128568. 2. 2.Hirschtick JL, Titus AR, Slocum E, Power LE, Hirschtick RE, Elliott MR, McKane P and Fleischer NL. Population-Based Estimates of Post-acute Sequelae of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection (PASC) Prevalence and Characteristics. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73:2055–2064. 3. 3.Taquet M, Dercon Q, Luciano S, Geddes JR, Husain M and Harrison PJ. Incidence, co-occurrence, and evolution of long-COVID features: A 6-month retrospective cohort study of 273,618 survivors of COVID-19. PLoS Med. 2021;18:e1003773. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003773&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F01%2F2022.05.17.22275235.atom) 4. 4.Piotr DA and Gaughan PC. Technical article: Updated estimates of the prevalence of post-acute symptoms among people with coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK: 26 April 2020 to 1 August 2021. 2021. 5. 5.Yomogida K, Zhu S, Rubino F, Figueroa W, Balanji N and Holman E. Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Adults Aged >/=18 Years - Long Beach, California, April 1-December 10, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:1274–1277. 6. 6.Clarke KEN, Jones JM, Deng Y, Nycz E, Lee A, Iachan R, Gundlapalli AV, Hall AJ and MacNeil A. Seroprevalence of Infection-Induced SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies - United States, September 2021-February 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:606–608. 7. 7.Amenta EM, Spallone A, Rodriguez-Barradas MC, El Sahly HM, Atmar RL and Kulkarni PA. Postacute COVID-19: An Overview and Approach to Classification. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020;7:ofaa509. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F01%2F2022.05.17.22275235.atom) 8. 8.Peluso MJ and Deeks SG. Early clues regarding the pathogenesis of long-COVID. Trends Immunol. 2022;43:268–270. 9. 9.Durstenfeld MS, Peluso MJ, Kelly JD, Win S, Swaminathan S, Li D, Arechiga VM, Zepeda VA, Sun K, Shao SJ, Hill C, Arreguin MI, Lu S, Hoh R, Tai VW, Chenna A, Yee BC, Winslow JW, Petropoulos CJ, Kornak J, Henrich TJ, Martin JN, Deeks SG and Hsue PY. Role of antibodies, inflammatory markers, and echocardiographic findings in post-acute cardiopulmonary symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection. JCI Insight. 2022. 10. 10.Fayol A, Livrozet M, Boutouyrie P, Khettab H, Betton M, Tea V, Blanchard A, Bruno RM, Hulot JS and French Ccsg. Cardiac performance in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: a 6 month follow-up study. ESC Heart Fail. 2021;8:2232–2239. 11. 11.Tangen J, Aukrust P, Barratt-Due A, Skulstad H and Edvardsen T. Reduced Cardiac Function by Echocardiography in a Minority of COVID-19 Patients 3 Months after Hospitalization. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography. 2022;35:243–244. 12. 12.Catena C, Colussi G, Bulfone L, Da Porto A, Tascini C and Sechi LA. Echocardiographic Comparison of COVID-19 Patients with or without Prior Biochemical Evidence of Cardiac Injury after Recovery. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2021;34:193–195. 13. 13.Wu X, Deng KQ, Li C, Yang Z, Hu H, Cai H, Zhang C, He T, Zheng F, Wang H, Zhang XA, Caillon A, Yuan Y, Wang X, Xu H and Lu Z. Cardiac Involvement in Recovered Patients From COVID-19: A Preliminary 6-Month Follow-Up Study. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8:654405. 14. 14.Sechi LA, Colussi G, Bulfone L, Brosolo G, Da Porto A, Peghin M, Patruno V, Tascini C and Catena C. Short-term cardiac outcome in survivors of COVID-19: a systematic study after hospital discharge. Clin Res Cardiol. 2021;110:1063–1072. 15. 15.Puntmann VO, Carerj ML, Wieters I, Fahim M, Arendt C, Hoffmann J, Shchendrygina A, Escher F, Vasa-Nicotera M, Zeiher AM, Vehreschild M and Nagel E. Outcomes of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients Recently Recovered From Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). JAMA Cardiology. 2020. 16. 16.Joy G, Artico J, Kurdi H, Seraphim A, Lau C, Thornton GD, Oliveira MF, Adam RD, Aziminia N, Menacho K, Chacko L, Brown JT, Patel RK, Shiwani H, Bhuva A, Augusto JB, Andiapen M, McKnight A, Noursadeghi M, Pierce I, Evain T, Captur G, Davies RH, Greenwood JP, Fontana M, Kellman P, Schelbert EB, Treibel TA, Manisty C and Moon JC. Prospective Case-Control Study of Cardiovascular Abnormalities 6 Months Following Mild COVID-19 in Healthcare Workers. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2021;14:2155–2166. 17. 17.Kotecha T, Knight DS, Razvi Y, Kumar K, Vimalesvaran K, Thornton G, Patel R, Chacko L, Brown JT, Coyle C, Leith D, Shetye A, Ariff B, Bell R, Captur G, Coleman M, Goldring J, Gopalan D, Heightman M, Hillman T, Howard L, Jacobs M, Jeetley PS, Kanagaratnam P, Kon OM, Lamb LE, Manisty CH, Mathurdas P, Mayet J, Negus R, Patel N, Pierce I, Russell G, Wolff A, Xue H, Kellman P, Moon JC, Treibel TA, Cole GD and Fontana M. Patterns of myocardial injury in recovered troponin-positive COVID-19 patients assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Eur Heart J. 2021. 18. 18.Roca-Fernandez A, Wamil M, Telford A, Carapella V, Borlotti A, Monteiro D, Thomaides-Brears H, Kelly MD, Dennis A, Banerjee R, Robson M, Brady M, Lip G, Bull S, Heightman MJ, Ntusi N and Banerjee A. Cardiac impairment in Long Covid 1-year post-SARS-CoV-2 infection. Preprint medRxiv 2022. 2022. 19. 19.Cassar MP, Tunnicliffe EM, Petousi N, Lewandowski AJ, Xie C, Mahmod M, Samat AHA, Evans RA, Brightling CE, Ho LP, Piechnik SK, Talbot NP, Holdsworth D, Ferreira VM, Neubauer S and Raman B. Symptom Persistence Despite Improvement in Cardiopulmonary Health - Insights from longitudinal CMR, CPET and lung function testing post-COVID-19. EClinicalMedicine. 2021;41:101159. 20. 20.Aparisi A, Ybarra-Falcon C, Garcia-Gomez M, Tobar J, Iglesias-Echeverria C, Jaurrieta-Largo S, Ladron R, Uribarri A, Catala P, Hinojosa W, Marcos-Mangas M, Fernandez-Prieto L, Sedano-Gutierrez R, Cusacovich I, Andaluz-Ojeda D, de Vega-Sanchez B, Recio-Platero A, Sanz-Patino E, Calvo D, Baladron C, Carrasco-Moraleja M, Disdier-Vicente C, Amat-Santos IJ and San Roman JA. Exercise Ventilatory Inefficiency in Post-COVID-19 Syndrome: Insights from a Prospective Evaluation. J Clin Med. 2021;10. 21. 21.Barbagelata L, Masson W, Iglesias D, Lillo E, Migone JF, Orazi ML and Maritano Furcada J. Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing in Patients with Post-COVID-19 Syndrome. Med Clin (Barc). 2021. 22. 22.Skjorten I, Ankerstjerne OAW, Trebinjac D, Bronstad E, Rasch-Halvorsen O, Einvik G, Lerum TV, Stavem K, Edvardsen A and Ingul CB. Cardiopulmonary exercise capacity and limitations 3 months after COVID-19 hospitalisation. Eur Respir J. 2021;58. 23. 23.Szekely Y, Lichter Y, Sadon S, Lupu L, Taieb P, Banai A, Sapir O, Granot Y, Hochstadt A, Friedman S, Laufer-Perl M, Banai S and Topilsky Y. Cardiorespiratory Abnormalities in Patients Recovering from Coronavirus Disease 2019. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2021;34:1273–1284.e9. 24. 24.Brown JT, Saigal A, Karia N, Patel RK, Razvi Y, Constantinou N, Steeden JA, Mandal S, Kotecha T, Fontana M, Goldring J, Muthurangu V and Knight DS. Ongoing Exercise Intolerance Following COVID-19: A Magnetic Resonance-Augmented Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test Study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2022;11:e024207. 25. 25.Ingul CB, Grimsmo J, Mecinaj A, Trebinjac D, Berger Nossen M, Andrup S, Grenne B, Dalen H, Einvik G, Stavem K, Follestad T, Josefsen T, Omland T and Jensen T. Cardiac Dysfunction and Arrhythmias 3 Months After Hospitalization for COVID-19. J Am Heart Assoc. 2022;11:e023473. 26. 26.Dewland TA, Whitman IR, Win S, Sanchez JM, Olgin JE, Pletcher MJ, Santhosh L, Kumar U, Joyce S, Yang V, Hwang J, Ogomori K, Peyser N, Horner C, Wen D, Butcher X and Marcus GM. Prospective arrhythmia surveillance after a COVID-19 diagnosis. Open Heart. 2022;9. 27. 27.Peluso MJ, Kelly JD, Lu S, Goldberg SA, Davidson MC, Mathur S, Durstenfeld MS, Spinelli MA, Hoh R, Tai V, Fehrman EA, Torres L, Hernandez Y, Williams MC, Arreguin MI, Ngo LH, Deswal M, Munter SE, Martinez EO, Anglin KA, Romero MD, Tavs J, Rugart PR, Chen JY, Sans HM, Murray VW, Ellis PK, Donohue KC, Massachi JA, Weiss JO, Mehdi I, Pineda-Ramirez J, Tang AF, Wenger MA, Assenzio MT, Yuan Y, Krone MR, Rutishauser RL, Rodriguez-Barraquer I, Greenhouse B, Sauceda JA, Gandhi M, Scheffler AW, Hsue PY, Henrich TJ, Deeks SG and Martin JN. Persistence, Magnitude, and Patterns of Postacute Symptoms and Quality of Life Following Onset of SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Cohort Description and Approaches for Measurement. Open Forum Infectious Diseases. 2021;9. 28. 28.Soriano JM, J; Diaz, JV; Murthy, S;; Relan, P. A clinical case definition of post COVID-19 condition by a Delphi consensus. 2021. 29. 29.Nagueh SF, Smiseth OA, Appleton CP, Byrd BF, 3rd., Dokainish H, Edvardsen T, Flachskampf FA, Gillebert TC, Klein AL, Lancellotti P, Marino P, Oh JK, Popescu BA and Waggoner AD. Recommendations for the Evaluation of Left Ventricular Diastolic Function by Echocardiography: An Update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2016;29:277–314. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.echo.2016.01.011&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27037982&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F01%2F2022.05.17.22275235.atom) 30. 30.Peluso MJ, Lu S, Tang AF, Durstenfeld MS, Ho HE, Goldberg SA, Forman CA, Munter SE, Hoh R, Tai V, Chenna A, Yee BC, Winslow JW, Petropoulos CJ, Greenhouse B, Hunt PW, Hsue PY, Martin JN, Daniel Kelly J, Glidden DV, Deeks SG and Henrich TJ. Markers of Immune Activation and Inflammation in Individuals With Postacute Sequelae of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection. J Infect Dis. 2021;224:1839–1848. 31. 31.Balady GJ, Arena R, Sietsema K, Myers J, Coke L, Fletcher GF, Forman D, Franklin B, Guazzi M, Gulati M, Keteyian SJ, Lavie CJ, Macko R, Mancini D, Milani RV, American Heart Association Exercise CR, Prevention Committee of the Council on Clinical C, Council on E, Prevention, Council on Peripheral Vascular D, Interdisciplinary Council on Quality of C and Outcomes R. Clinician’s Guide to cardiopulmonary exercise testing in adults: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010;122:191–225. [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTQ6ImNpcmN1bGF0aW9uYWhhIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjEyMi8yLzE5MSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzA2LzAxLzIwMjIuMDUuMTcuMjIyNzUyMzUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 32. 32.Hansen JE, Sue DY and Wasserman K. Predicted values for clinical exercise testing. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1984;129:S49–55. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1164/arrd.1984.129.2P2.S49&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=6421218&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F01%2F2022.05.17.22275235.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1984SK60000016&link_type=ISI) 33. 33.Wasserman K HJ, Sue DY, Stringer W, Whipp BJ. Principles of Exercise Testing and Interpretation. 4th ed. Philadelpha: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2005. 34. 34.Arena R, Myers J, Abella J, Pinkstaff S, Brubaker P, Moore B, Kitzman D, Peberdy MA, Bensimhon D, Chase P, Forman D, West E and Guazzi M. Determining the preferred percent-predicted equation for peak oxygen consumption in patients with heart failure. Circ Heart Fail. 2009;2:113–20. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NjoiY2lyY2hmIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjc6IjIvMi8xMTMiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8wNi8wMS8yMDIyLjA1LjE3LjIyMjc1MjM1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 35. 35.Brubaker PH and Kitzman DW. Chronotropic Incompetence. Circulation. 2011;123:1010–1020. [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTQ6ImNpcmN1bGF0aW9uYWhhIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiIxMjMvOS8xMDEwIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMDYvMDEvMjAyMi4wNS4xNy4yMjI3NTIzNS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 36. 36.Ribeiro Baptista B, d’Humieres T, Schlemmer F, Bendib I, Justeau G, Al-Assaad L, Hachem M, Codiat R, Bardel B, Abou Chakra L, Belmondo T, Audureau E, Hue S, Mekontso-Dessap A, Derumeaux G and Boyer L. Identification of factors impairing exercise capacity after severe COVID-19 pulmonary infection: a 3-month follow-up of prospective COVulnerability cohort. Respir Res. 2022;23:68. 37. 37.Peluso MJ, Deitchman AN, Torres L, Iyer NS, Munter SE, Nixon CC, Donatelli J, Thanh C, Takahashi S, Hakim J, Turcios K, Janson O, Hoh R, Tai V, Hernandez Y, Fehrman EA, Spinelli MA, Gandhi M, Trinh L, Wrin T, Petropoulos CJ, Aweeka FT, Rodriguez-Barraquer I, Kelly JD, Martin JN, Deeks SG, Greenhouse B, Rutishauser RL and Henrich TJ. Long-term SARS-CoV-2-specific immune and inflammatory responses in individuals recovering from COVID-19 with and without post-acute symptoms. Cell Rep. 2021;36:109518. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109518&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F01%2F2022.05.17.22275235.atom) 38. 38.Littlefield KM, Watson RO, Schneider JM, Neff CP, Yamada E, Zhang M, Campbell TB, Falta MT, Jolley SE, Fontenot AP and Palmer BE. SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells associate with inflammation and reduced lung function in pulmonary post-acute sequalae of SARS-CoV-2. PLoS Pathog. 2022;18:e1010359. 39. 39.Gaebler C, Wang Z, Lorenzi JCC, Muecksch F, Finkin S, Tokuyama M, Cho A, Jankovic M, Schaefer-Babajew D, Oliveira TY, Cipolla M, Viant C, Barnes CO, Bram Y, Breton G, Hagglof T, Mendoza P, Hurley A, Turroja M, Gordon K, Millard KG, Ramos V, Schmidt F, Weisblum Y, Jha D, Tankelevich M, Martinez-Delgado G, Yee J, Patel R, Dizon J, Unson-O’Brien C, Shimeliovich I, Robbiani DF, Zhao Z, Gazumyan A, Schwartz RE, Hatziioannou T, Bjorkman PJ, Mehandru S, Bieniasz PD, Caskey M and Nussenzweig MC. Evolution of antibody immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Nature. 2021;591:639–644. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F01%2F2022.05.17.22275235.atom) 40. 40.Peluso MJ, Deeks SG, Mustapic M, Kapogiannis D, Henrich TJ, Lu S, Goldberg SA, Hoh R, Chen JY, Martinez EO, Kelly JD, Martin JN and Goetzl EJ. SARS-CoV-2 and Mitochondrial Proteins in Neural-Derived Exosomes of COVID-19. Ann Neurol. 2022;91:772–781. 41. 41.Natarajan A, Zlitni S, Brooks EF, Vance SE, Dahlen A, Hedlin H, Park RM, Han A, Schmidtke DT, Verma R, Jacobson KB, Parsonnet J, Bonilla HF, Singh U, Pinsky BA, Andrews JR, Jagannathan P and Bhatt AS. Gastrointestinal symptoms and fecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 RNA suggest prolonged gastrointestinal infection. Med (N Y). 2022. 42. 42.Chertow D, Stein S, Ramelli S, Grazioli A, Chung J-Y, Singh M, Yinda CK, Winkler C, Dickey J, Ylaya K, Ko SH, Platt A, Burbelo P, Quezado M, Pittaluga S, Purcell M, Munster V, Belinky F, Ramos-Benitez M, Boritz E, Herr D, Rabin J, Saharia K, Madathil R, Tabatabai A, Soherwardi S, McCurdy M, Peterson K, Cohen J, de Wit E, Vannella K, Hewitt S and Kleiner D. SARS-CoV-2 infection and persistence throughout the human body and brain. Preprint at [https://doiorg/1021203/rs3rs-1139035/v1](https://doiorg/1021203/rs3rs-1139035/v1) (Posted December 20, 2021). 2021. 43. 43.Zollner A, Koch R, Jukic A, Pfister A, Meyer M, Rössler A, Kimpel J, Adolph TE and Tilg H. Post-acute COVID-19 is characterized by gut viral antigen persistence in inflammatory bowel diseases. Gastroenterology. 2022. 44. 44.Peluso MJ, Sans HM, Forman CA, Nylander AN, Ho H-e, Lu S, Goldberg SA, Hoh R, Tai V, Munter SE, Chenna A, Yee BC, Winslow JW, Petropoulos CJ, Martin JN, Kelly JD, Durstenfeld MS, Hsue PY, Hunt PW, Greene M, Chow FC, Hellmuth J, Henrich TJ, Glidden DV and Deeks SG. Plasma markers of neurologic injury and systemic inflammation in individuals with self-reported neurologic post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). medRxiv. 2021:2021.11.02.21265778. 45. 45.Phetsouphanh C, Darley DR, Wilson DB, Howe A, Munier CML, Patel SK, Juno JA, Burrell LM, Kent SJ, Dore GJ, Kelleher AD and Matthews GV. Immunological dysfunction persists for 8 months following initial mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nat Immunol. 2022;23:210–216. 46. 46.Hajiasgharzadeh K, Mirnajafi-Zadeh J and Mani AR. Interleukin-6 impairs chronotropic responsiveness to cholinergic stimulation and decreases heart rate variability in mice. Eur J Pharmacol. 2011;673:70–7. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ejphar.2011.10.013&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22044916&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F01%2F2022.05.17.22275235.atom) 47. 47.Kistner TM, Pedersen BK and Lieberman DE. Interleukin 6 as an energy allocator in muscle tissue. Nat Metab. 2022;4:170–179. 48. 48.Lee J, Lee S, Zhang H, Hill MA, Zhang C and Park Y. Interaction of IL-6 and TNF-α contributes to endothelial dysfunction in type 2 diabetic mouse hearts. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0187189. 49. 49.Huang PH, Leu HB, Chen JW, Wu TC, Lu TM, Ding YA and Lin SJ. Comparison of endothelial vasodilator function, inflammatory markers, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide in patients with or without chronotropic incompetence to exercise test. Heart. 2006;92:609–14. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiaGVhcnRqbmwiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiOTIvNS82MDkiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8wNi8wMS8yMDIyLjA1LjE3LjIyMjc1MjM1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 50. 50.Bechsgaard DF, Hove JD, Suhrs HE, Bové KB, Shahriari P, Gustafsson I and Prescott E. Women with coronary microvascular dysfunction and no obstructive coronary artery disease have reduced exercise capacity. International Journal of Cardiology. 2019;293:1–9. 51. 51.Kim B-J, Jo E-A, Im S-I, Kim H-S, Heo JH and Cho K-I. Heart rate recovery and blood pressure response during exercise testing in patients with microvascular angina. Clinical Hypertension. 2019;25:4. 52. 52.Paneroni M, Pasini E, Vitacca M, Scalvini S, Comini L, Pedrinolla A and Venturelli M. Altered Vascular Endothelium-Dependent Responsiveness in Frail Elderly Patients Recovering from COVID-19 Pneumonia: Preliminary Evidence. J Clin Med. 2021;10. 53. 53.Mejia-Renteria H, Travieso A, Sagir A, Martínez-Gómez E, Carrascosa-Granada A, Toya T, Núñez-Gil IJ, Estrada V, Lerman A and Escaned J. In-vivo evidence of systemic endothelial vascular dysfunction in COVID-19. International Journal of Cardiology. 2021;345:153–155. 54. 54.Drakos S, Chatzantonis G, Bietenbeck M, Evers G, Schulze AB, Mohr M, Fonfara H, Meier C and Yilmaz A. A cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging-based pilot study to assess coronary microvascular disease in COVID-19 patients. Sci Rep. 2021;11:15667. 55. 55.Ambrosino P, Parrella P, Formisano R, Perrotta G, D’Anna SE, Mosella M, Papa A and Maniscalco M. Cardiopulmonary Exercise Performance and Endothelial Function in Convalescent COVID-19 Patients. J Clin Med. 2022;11. 56. 56.Fodor A, Tiperciuc B, Login C, Orasan OH, Lazar AL, Buchman C, Hanghicel P, Sitar-Taut A, Suharoschi R, Vulturar R and Cozma A. Endothelial Dysfunction, Inflammation, and Oxidative Stress in COVID-19-Mechanisms and Therapeutic Targets. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2021;2021:8671713. 57. 57.Singh I, Joseph P, Heerdt PM, Cullinan M, Lutchmansingh DD, Gulati M, Possick JD, Systrom DM and Waxman AB. Persistent Exertional Intolerance After COVID-19: Insights From Invasive Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing. Chest. 2022;161:54–63. 58. 58.Mancini DM, Brunjes DL, Lala A, Trivieri MG, Contreras JP and Natelson BH. Use of Cardiopulmonary Stress Testing for Patients With Unexplained Dyspnea Post-Coronavirus Disease. JACC Heart Fail. 2021;9:927–937. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jchf.2021.10.002&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F01%2F2022.05.17.22275235.atom) 59. 59.Fresard I, Genecand L, Altarelli M, Gex G, Vremaroiu P, Vremaroiu-Coman A, Lawi D and Bridevaux PO. Dysfunctional breathing diagnosed by cardiopulmonary exercise testing in ‘long COVID’ patients with persistent dyspnoea. BMJ Open Respir Res. 2022;9:e001126. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qcmVzcCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiOS8xL2UwMDExMjYiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8wNi8wMS8yMDIyLjA1LjE3LjIyMjc1MjM1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 60. 60.Motiejunaite J, Balagny P, Arnoult F, Mangin L, Bancal C, Vidal-Petiot E, Flamant M, Jondeau G, Cohen-Solal A, d’Ortho MP and Frija-Masson J. Hyperventilation as one of the mechanisms of persistent dyspnoea in SARS-CoV-2 survivors. Eur Respir J. 2021;58:2101578. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiZXJqIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiI1OC8yLzIxMDE1NzgiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8wNi8wMS8yMDIyLjA1LjE3LjIyMjc1MjM1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 61. 61.Novak P, Mukerji SS, Alabsi HS, Systrom D, Marciano SP, Felsenstein D, Mullally WJ and Pilgrim DM. Multisystem Involvement in Post-Acute Sequelae of Coronavirus Disease 19. Ann Neurol. 2022;91:367–379. 62. 62.Oaklander AL, Mills AJ, Kelley M, Toran LS, Smith B, Dalakas MC and Nath A. Peripheral Neuropathy Evaluations of Patients With Prolonged Long COVID. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2022;9. 63. 63.Fudim M, Sobotka PA and Dunlap ME. Extracardiac Abnormalities of Preload Reserve: Mechanisms Underlying Exercise Limitation in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction, Autonomic Dysfunction, and Liver Disease. Circ Heart Fail. 2021;14:e007308. 64. 64.Li Y-C, Zhang Y and Tan B-H. What can cerebrospinal fluid testing and brain autopsies tell us about viral neuroinvasion of SARS-CoV-2. Journal of Medical Virology. 2021;93:4247–4257. 65. 65.Douaud G, Lee S, Alfaro-Almagro F, Arthofer C, Wang C, McCarthy P, Lange F, Andersson JLR, Griffanti L, Duff E, Jbabdi S, Taschler B, Keating P, Winkler AM, Collins R, Matthews PM, Allen N, Miller KL, Nichols TE and Smith SM. SARS-CoV-2 is associated with changes in brain structure in UK Biobank. Nature. 2022;604:697–707. 66. 66.Apple AC, Oddi A, Peluso MJ, Asken BM, Henrich TJ, Kelly JD, Pleasure SJ, Deeks SG, Allen IE, Martin JN, Ndhlovu LC, Miller BL, Stephens ML and Hellmuth J. Risk factors and abnormal cerebrospinal fluid associate with cognitive symptoms after mild COVID-19. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2022;9:221–226. 67. 67.Sanders P, Kistler PM, Morton JB, Spence SJ and Kalman JM. Remodeling of sinus node function in patients with congestive heart failure: reduction in sinus node reserve. Circulation. 2004;110:897–903. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTQ6ImNpcmN1bGF0aW9uYWhhIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjExMC84Lzg5NyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzA2LzAxLzIwMjIuMDUuMTcuMjIyNzUyMzUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 68. 68.Han Y, Zhu J, Yang L, Nilsson-Payant BE, Hurtado R, Lacko LA, Sun X, Gade AR, Higgins CA, Sisso WJ, Dong X, Wang M, Chen Z, Ho DD, Pitt GS, Schwartz RE, tenOever BR, Evans T and Chen S. SARS-CoV-2 Infection Induces Ferroptosis of Sinoatrial Node Pacemaker Cells. Circ Res. 2022;130:963–977. 69. 69.Stute NL, Stickford JL, Province VM, Augenreich MA, Ratchford SM and Stickford ASL. COVID-19 is getting on our nerves: sympathetic neural activity and haemodynamics in young adults recovering from SARS-CoV-2. J Physiol. 2021;599:4269–4285. 70. 70.Halaris A. Inflammation-Associated Co-morbidity Between Depression and Cardiovascular Disease. Curr Top Behav Neurosci. 2017;31:45–70. 71. 71.Williams DP, Koenig J, Carnevali L, Sgoifo A, Jarczok MN, Sternberg EM and Thayer JF. Heart rate variability and inflammation: A meta-analysis of human studies. Brain Behav Immun. 2019;80:219–226. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.bbi.2019.03.009&link_type=DOI) 72. 72.Franssen WMA, Keytsman C, Marinus N, Verboven K, Eijnde BO, van Ryckeghem L, Dendale P, Zeevaert R, Massa G and Hansen D. Chronotropic incompetence is more frequent in obese adolescents and relates to systemic inflammation and exercise intolerance. J Sport Health Sci. 2021. 73. 73.Benes J, Kotrc M, Borlaug BA, Lefflerova K, Jarolim P, Bendlova B, Jabor A, Kautzner J and Melenovsky V. Resting heart rate and heart rate reserve in advanced heart failure have distinct pathophysiologic correlates and prognostic impact: a prospective pilot study. JACC Heart Fail. 2013;1:259–66. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiamhmIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjc6IjEvMy8yNTkiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8wNi8wMS8yMDIyLjA1LjE3LjIyMjc1MjM1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 74. 74.Sollini M, Ciccarelli M, Cecconi M, Aghemo A, Morelli P, Gelardi F and Chiti A. Vasculitis changes in COVID-19 survivors with persistent symptoms: an [18F]FDG-PET/CT study. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2021;48:1460–1466. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00259-020-05084-3&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33123760&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F01%2F2022.05.17.22275235.atom) 75. 75.Saricam E, Dursun AD, Turkmen Sariyildiz G, Can N, Bozkurt E, Gonullu U, Basay N, Turkmen M, Denli A and Unlu M. Laboratory and Imaging Evaluation of Cardiac Involvement in Patients with Post-Acute COVID-19. Int J Gen Med. 2021;14:4977–4985. 76. 76.Tawakol A, Ishai A, Takx RA, Figueroa AL, Ali A, Kaiser Y, Truong QA, Solomon CJ, Calcagno C, Mani V, Tang CY, Mulder WJ, Murrough JW, Hoffmann U, Nahrendorf M, Shin LM, Fayad ZA and Pitman RK. Relation between resting amygdalar activity and cardiovascular events: a longitudinal and cohort study. Lancet. 2017;389:834–845. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31714-7&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F01%2F2022.05.17.22275235.atom) 77. 77.Tawakol A, Osborne MT, Wang Y, Hammed B, Tung B, Patrich T, Oberfeld B, Ishai A, Shin LM, Nahrendorf M, Warner ET, Wasfy J, Fayad ZA, Koenen K, Ridker PM, Pitman RK and Armstrong KA. Stress-Associated Neurobiological Pathway Linking Socioeconomic Disparities to Cardiovascular Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73:3243–3255. [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6MzoiUERGIjtzOjExOiJqb3VybmFsQ29kZSI7czo0OiJhY2NqIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiI3My8yNS8zMjQzIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMDYvMDEvMjAyMi4wNS4xNy4yMjI3NTIzNS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 78. 78.Tell D, Burr RL, Mathews HL and Janusek LW. Heart Rate Variability and Inflammatory Stress Response in Young African American Men: Implications for Cardiovascular Risk. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8:745864. 79. 79.Fonkoue IT, Marvar PJ, Norrholm S, Li Y, Kankam ML, Jones TN, Vemulapalli M, Rothbaum B, Bremner JD, Le NA and Park J. Symptom severity impacts sympathetic dysregulation and inflammation in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Brain Behav Immun. 2020;83:260–269. 80. 80.Clavario P, De Marzo V, Lotti R, Barbara C, Porcile A, Russo C, Beccaria F, Bonavia M, Bottaro LC, Caltabellotta M, Chioni F, Santangelo M, Hautala AJ, Griffo R, Parati G, Corra U and Porto I. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing in COVID-19 patients at 3 months follow-up. Int J Cardiol. 2021;340:113–118. 81. 81.Rinaldo RF, Mondoni M, Parazzini EM, Pitari F, Brambilla E, Luraschi S, Balbi M, Sferrazza Papa GF, Sotgiu G, Guazzi M, Di Marco F and Centanni S. Deconditioning as main mechanism of impaired exercise response in COVID-19 survivors. Eur Respir J. 2021;58:2100870. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiZXJqIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiI1OC8yLzIxMDA4NzAiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8wNi8wMS8yMDIyLjA1LjE3LjIyMjc1MjM1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 82. 82.Borrego Rodriguez J, Berenguel Senen A, De Cabo Porras C, Gallango Brejano M, Gigante Miravalles E, Morante Perea C, Serrano Blanco A, Gadella Fernandez A, Martinez Camara A, Sanchez-Aguilera Sanchez-Paulete P, Lazaro Salvador M, Flores Hernan M, Lozano Lazaro MG, Arias Palomares MA and Rodriguez Padial L. Cardiopulmonary exercise test in patients with persistent dyspnea after COVID-19 disease. European Heart Journal. 2021;42. 83. 83.Jahn K, Sava M, Sommer G, Schumann DM, Bassetti S, Siegemund M, Battegay M, Stolz D, Tamm M, Khanna N and Hostettler KE. Exercise capacity impairment after COVID-19 pneumonia is mainly caused by deconditioning. The European respiratory journal. 2021;59:2101136. 84. 84.Schaeffer MR, Cowan J, Milne KM, Puyat JH, Voduc N, Corrales-Medina V, Lavoie KL, Mulloy A, Chirinos JA, Abdallah SJ and Guenette JA. Cardiorespiratory physiology, exertional symptoms, and psychological burden in post-COVID-19 fatigue. Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 2022;302:103898. 85. 85.Abdallah SJ, Voduc N, Corrales-Medina VF, McGuinty M, Pratt A, Chopra A, Law A, Garuba HA, Thavorn K, Reid RER, Lavoie KL, Crawley A, Chirinos JA and Cowan J. Symptoms, Pulmonary Function, and Functional Capacity Four Months after COVID-19. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2021;18:1912–1917. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F01%2F2022.05.17.22275235.atom) 86. 86.Jimeno-Almazán A, Pallarés JG, Buendía-Romero Á, Martínez-Cava A and Courel-Ibáñez J. Chronotropic Incompetence in Non-Hospitalized Patients with Post-COVID-19 Syndrome. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021;10:5434. 87. 87.Ladlow P, O’Sullivan O, Houston A, Barker-Davies R, May S, Mills D, Dewson D, Chamley R, Naylor J, Mulae J, Bennett AN, Nicol ED and Holdsworth DA. Dysautonomia following COVID-19 is not associated with subjective limitations or symptoms but is associated with objective functional limitations. Heart Rhythm. 2022;19:613–620. 88. 88.Jouven X, Empana JP, Schwartz PJ, Desnos M, Courbon D and Ducimetiere P. Heart-rate profile during exercise as a predictor of sudden death. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:1951–8. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa043012&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15888695&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F01%2F2022.05.17.22275235.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000229017100005&link_type=ISI) 89. 89.Savonen KP, Lakka TA, Laukkanen JA, Halonen PM, Rauramaa TH, Salonen JT and Rauramaa R. Heart rate response during exercise test and cardiovascular mortality in middle-aged men. European Heart Journal. 2006;27:582–588. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/eurheartj/ehi708&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16399774&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F01%2F2022.05.17.22275235.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000235605100016&link_type=ISI) 90. 90.Lauer MS, Francis GS, Okin PM, Pashkow FJ, Snader CE and Marwick TH. Impaired Chronotropic Response to Exercise Stress Testing as a Predictor of Mortality. JAMA. 1999;281:524–529. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.281.6.524&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10022108&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F01%2F2022.05.17.22275235.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000078452900030&link_type=ISI) 91. 91.Joseph P, Arevalo C, Oliveira RKF, Faria-Urbina M, Felsenstein D, Oaklander AL and Systrom DM. Insights From Invasive Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing of Patients With Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Chest. 2021;160:642–651. 92. 92.Kotecha T, Knight DS, Razvi Y, Kumar K, Vimalesvaran K, Thornton G, Patel R, Chacko L, Brown JT, Coyle C, Leith D, Shetye A, Ariff B, Bell R, Captur G, Coleman M, Goldring J, Gopalan D, Heightman M, Hillman T, Howard L, Jacobs M, Jeetley PS, Kanagaratnam P, Kon OM, Lamb LE, Manisty CH, Mathurdas P, Mayet J, Negus R, Patel N, Pierce I, Russell G, Wolff A, Xue H, Kellman P, Moon JC, Treibel TA, Cole GD and Fontana M. Patterns of myocardial injury in recovered troponin-positive COVID-19 patients assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Eur Heart J. 2021;42:1866–1878. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F01%2F2022.05.17.22275235.atom) 93. 93.Morrow AJ, Sykes R, McIntosh A, Kamdar A, Bagot C, Bayes HK, Blyth KG, Briscoe M, Bulluck H, Carrick D, Church C, Corcoran D, Findlay I, Gibson VB, Gillespie L, Grieve D, Hall Barrientos P, Ho A, Lang NN, Lennie V, Lowe DJ, Macfarlane PW, Mark PB, Mayne KJ, McConnachie A, McGeoch R, McGinley C, McKee C, Nordin S, Payne A, Rankin AJ, Robertson KE, Roditi G, Ryan N, Sattar N, Allwood-Spiers S, Stobo D, Touyz RM, Veldtman G, Watkins S, Weeden S, Weir RA, Welsh P, Wereski R, Consortium C-, Mangion K and Berry C. A multisystem, cardio-renal investigation of post-COVID-19 illness. Nat Med. 2022. 94. 94.Aranyó J, Bazan V, Lladós G, Dominguez MJ, Bisbal F, Massanella M, Sarrias A, Adeliño R, Riverola A, Paredes R, Clotet B, Bayés-Genís A, Mateu L and Villuendas R. Inappropriate sinus tachycardia in post-COVID-19 syndrome. Scientific Reports. 2022;12:298. 95. 95.Keteyian SJ, Brawner CA, Schairer JR, Levine TB, Levine AB, Rogers FJ and Goldstein S. Effects of exercise training on chronotropic incompetence in patients with heart failure. Am Heart J. 1999;138:233–40. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0002-8703(99)70106-7&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10426833&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F01%2F2022.05.17.22275235.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000081922200009&link_type=ISI) 96. 96.Kiilavuori K, Toivonen L, Näveri H and Leinonen H. Reversal of autonomic derangements by physical training in chronic heart failure assessed by heart rate variability. Eur Heart J. 1995;16:490–5. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=7671894&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F01%2F2022.05.17.22275235.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1995QV75300011&link_type=ISI) 97. 97.Myers J, Hadley D, Oswald U, Bruner K, Kottman W, Hsu L and Dubach P. Effects of exercise training on heart rate recovery in patients with chronic heart failure. Am Heart J. 2007;153:1056–63. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ahj.2007.02.038&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17540210&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F01%2F2022.05.17.22275235.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000247540600024&link_type=ISI) 98. 98.Fu Q and Levine BD. Exercise and non-pharmacological treatment of POTS. Auton Neurosci. 2018;215:20–27. 99. 99.George SA, Bivens TB, Howden EJ, Saleem Y, Galbreath MM, Hendrickson D, Fu Q and Levine BD. The international POTS registry: Evaluating the efficacy of an exercise training intervention in a community setting. Heart Rhythm. 2016;13:943–50. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.12.012&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26690066&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F06%2F01%2F2022.05.17.22275235.atom)