Key result
The 2017 International Criteria performs best for detecting cardiac abnormalities in athletes, yielding 97% specificity.
Why the study?
Several ECG criteria have aimed to improve the detection of at-risk athletes during pre-participation screening, but their comparative performance in a Singapore athlete population was unknown.
Does the 2017 International Criteria improve the accuracy of detecting cardiac abnormalities on echocardiography in athletes compared to older ECG criteria?
Observational (n=270)
No
Does the 2017 International Criteria improve the accuracy of detecting cardiac abnormalities on echocardiography in athletes compared to older ECG criteria?
The 2017 International Criteria for athlete ECG interpretation significantly reduces false-positive rates and improves specificity compared to older criteria in a Southeast Asian population.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support preferring 2017 criteria to reduce false-positive ECGs in athletes; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
Introduction: Sudden cardiac death in athletes is a rare occurrence, the most common cause being hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, which increases the risk of sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. Most of these young athletes are asymptomatic prior to the cardiac arrest. Several electrocardiogram criteria such as the European Society of Cardiology group 2 Criteria changes, Seattle Criteria, Refined Criteria, and most recently the 2017 International Criteria, have sought to improve the accuracy of identifying these at-risk athletes during pre-participation screening while minimising unnecessary investigations for the majority of athletes at low risk.We aimed to compare the above four criteria in our Singapore athlete population to identify which criterion performed the best in detecting cardiac abnormalities on echocardiography. Method: Out of 1,515 athletes included in Changi General Hospital, Singapore registry between June 2007 and June 2014, the electrocardiograms of 270 athletes with further cardiac investigations were analysed. We compared the above four electrocardiographic criteria to evaluate which performed best for detecting cardiac abnormalities on echocardiography in our Southeast Asian athlete population. Results: The European Society of Cardiology, Seattle, Refined and 2017 International Criteria had a sensitivity of 20%, 0%, 20% and 5%, respectively; a specificity of 64%, 93%, 84% and 97%, respectively; a positive predictive value of 4%, 0%, 9% and 11%, respectively; and a negative predictive value of 91%, 92%, 93% and 93%, respectively for detecting abnormalities on echocardiography. Conclusion: The latest 2017 International Criteria performed the best as it had the highest specificity and positive predictive value, joint highest negative predictive value, and lowest false positive rate.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lim et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Athletes undergoing pre-participation screening (n=270). Four electrocardiographic criteria (ESC, Seattle, Refined, 2017 International) vs. Echocardiography was evaluated on Detection of cardiac abnormalities on echocardiography. The 2017 International Criteria performed best for detecting cardiac abnormalities on echocardiography in athletes, yielding the highest specificity (97%) and positive predictive value (11%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: