Why the study?
Current recommendations for detecting high-risk cardiovascular conditions to prevent sudden cardiac death in athletes rely on history and physical examination, prompting a review of their effectiveness versus more modern and accurate screening methods.
Does modern screening with MRI, echocardiography, and ECG improve the detection of high-risk cardiovascular conditions and prevent sudden cardiac death in young athletes compared to traditional history and physical examination?
Does modern screening with MRI, echocardiography, and ECG improve the detection of high-risk cardiovascular conditions and prevent sudden cardiac death in young athletes compared to traditional history and physical examination?
Modern screening approaches incorporating MRI and echocardiography may offer superior detection of high-risk cardiovascular conditions in young athletes compared to traditional history and physical examination.
s-MRI may enhance hr-CVC detection in athletes; leaves open its adoption pending prospective trials.
Preventing sudden cardiac death (SCD) in athletes is a primary duty of sports cardiologists. Current recommendations for detecting high-risk cardiovascular conditions (hr-CVCs) are history and physical examination (H&P)-based. We discuss the effectiveness of H&P-based screening versus more-modern and accurate methods. In this position paper, we review current authoritative statements and suggest a novel alternative: screening MRI (s-MRI), supported by evidence from a preliminary population-based study (completed in 2018), and a prospective, controlled study in military recruits (in development). We present: 1. Literature-Based Comparisons (for diagnosing hr-CVCs): Two recent studies using traditional methods to identify hr-CVCs in >3,000 young athletes are compared with our s-MRI-based study of 5,169 adolescents. 2. Critical Review of Previous Results: The reported incidence of SCD in athletes is presently based on retrospective, observational, and incomplete studies. H&P’s screening value seems minimal for structural heart disease, versus echocardiography (which improves diagnosis for high-risk cardiomyopathies) and s-MRI (which also identifies high-risk coronary artery anomalies). Electrocardiography is valuable in screening for potentially high-risk electrophysiological anomalies. 3. Proposed Project: We propose a prospective, controlled study (2 comparable large cohorts: one historical, one prospective) to compare: (1) diagnostic accuracy and resulting mortality-prevention performance of traditional screening methods versus questionnaire/electrocardiography/s-MRI, during 2-month periods of intense, structured exercise (in military recruits, in advanced state of preparation); (2) global costs and cost/efficiency between these two methods. This study should contribute significantly toward a comprehensive understanding of the incidence and causes of exercise-related mortality (including establishing a definition of hr-CVCs) while aiming to reduce mortality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Angelini et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: