Why the study?
Distinguishing arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy from the athlete's heart is challenging, and whether cardiac junction impairment from intense endurance exercise triggers an autoimmune response similar to arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy remains unknown.
This hypothesis suggests that an autoimmune mechanism may underlie the pathological remodeling seen in some endurance athletes, potentially helping to distinguish exercise-induced damage from arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy.
Should not yet change athlete evaluation; hypothesis-generating for autoimmune mechanisms in exercise-induced remodeling.
The "Extreme Exercise Hypothesis" states that when individuals perform training beyond the ideal exercise dose, a decline in the beneficial effects of physical activity occurs. This is due to significant changes in myocardial structure and function, such as hemodynamic alterations, cardiac chamber enlargement and hypertrophy, myocardial inflammation, oxidative stress, fibrosis, and conduction changes. In addition, an increased amount of circulating biomarkers of exercise-induced damage has been reported. Although these changes are often reversible, long-lasting cardiac damage may develop after years of intense physical exercise. Since several features of the athlete's heart overlap with arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM), the syndrome of "exercise-induced ACM" has been postulated. Thus, the distinction between ACM and the athlete's heart may be challenging. Recently, an autoimmune mechanism has been discovered in ACM patients linked to their characteristic junctional impairment. Since cardiac junctions are similarly impaired by intense physical activity due to the strong myocardial stretching, we propose in the present work the novel hypothesis of an autoimmune response in endurance athletes. This investigation may deepen the knowledge about the pathological remodeling and relative activated mechanisms induced by intense endurance exercise, potentially improving the early recognition of whom is actually at risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stadiotti et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: