Why the study?
Previous investigations of functional and mechanical LV adaptation in endurance athletes have been contradictory, possibly due to a lack of clarity in performance levels.
Does elite and sub-elite road cycling alter structural, functional, and mechanical characteristics of the left ventricle compared to non-athletes?
Does elite and sub-elite road cycling alter structural, functional, and mechanical characteristics of the left ventricle compared to non-athletes?
Elite road cyclists exhibit significantly greater left ventricular structural adaptation, including dilated eccentric hypertrophy, compared to sub-elite cyclists and non-athletes.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Greater eccentric LV hypertrophy in elite cyclists warrants screening caution; cross-sectional data leave causal and prognostic implications open.
Marked adaptation of left ventricular (LV) structure in endurance athletes is well established. However, previous investigations of functional and mechanical adaptation have been contradictory. A lack of clarity in subjects’ athletic performance level may have contributed to these disparate findings. This study aimed to describe structural, functional, and mechanical characteristics of the cyclists’ LV, based on clearly defined performance levels. Male elite cyclists (EC) (n = 69), sub‐elite cyclists (SEC) (n = 30), and non‐athletes (NA) (n = 46) were comparatively studied using conventional and speckle tracking 2D echocardiography. Dilated eccentric hypertrophy was common in EC (34.7%), but not SEC (3.3%). Chamber concentricity was higher in EC compared to SEC (7.11 ± 1.08 vs 5.85 ± 0.98 g/(mL) 2/3 , P < .001). Ejection fraction (EF) was lower in EC compared to NA (57 ± 5% vs 59 ± 4%, P < .05), and reduced EF was observed in a greater proportion of EC (11.6%) compared to SEC (6.7%). Global circumferential strain (GCε) was greater in EC (−18.4 ± 2.4%) and SEC (−19.8 ± 2.7%) compared to NA (−17.2 ± 2.6%) ( P < .05 and P < .001). Early diastolic filling was lower in EC compared with SEC (0.72 ± 0.14 vs 0.88 ± 0.12 cm/s, P < .001), as were septal E’ (12 ± 2 vs 15 ± 2 cm/s, P < .001) and lateral E’ (18 ± 4 vs 20 ± 4 cm/s, P < .05). The magnitude of LV structural adaptation was far greater in EC compared with SEC. Increased GCε may represent a compensatory mechanism to maintain stroke volume in the presence of increased chamber volume. Decreased E and E’ velocities may be indicative of a considerable functional reserve in EC.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brown et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: