Key result
Survey finds ~83% of sports cardiologists support updated athlete ECG interpretation guidance.
Why the study?
This study aimed to evaluate the real-world use of contemporary international ECG interpretation criteria in athletes and to compare practices, clinical decision-making, and perceived barriers between specialist and non-specialist professionals across Europe.
How do practices, clinical decision-making, and perceived barriers in using contemporary international ECG interpretation criteria in athletes compare between specialist sports cardiologists and non-specialist medical professionals across Europe?
Cross-Sectional (n=242)
Yes
How do practices, clinical decision-making, and perceived barriers in using contemporary international ECG interpretation criteria in athletes compare between specialist sports cardiologists and non-specialist medical professionals across Europe?
This European survey reveals substantial heterogeneity in preparticipation screening practices, knowledge gaps among non-specialists, and a broad consensus on the need for updated athlete ECG interpretation guidelines.
Highlights perceived limitations of current athlete ECG criteria; leaves open whether refined indices improve screening accuracy or outcomes.
Background We aimed to evaluate the real-world use of contemporary international ECG interpretation criteria in athletes, and to compare practices, clinical decision-making, and perceived barriers between specialist and non-specialist professionals across Europe. Methods Two sets of structured questionnaires were developed and distributed to either sports cardiologists or non-specialist professionals. Knowledge of international guidelines, experience in ECG interpretation, and confidence levels in clinical decision-making across various clinical scenarios were evaluated. An open-ended questionnaire was also developed to explore aspects of ECG interpretation, medicolegal issues, relevant legal frameworks across European countries, and personal thoughts on possible future revisions to the documents. The questionnaires were revised and edited by expert sports cardiologists, affiliated with EAPC. Data were analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Results A total of 242 participants across Europe were included; 66% were male and 57% worked in public hospitals. Non-specialists demonstrated uncertainty in standard definitions, classification systems, and key applications of ECG criteria. These findings highlight variability in preparticipation screening (PPS) practices and areas of uncertainty in clinical decision-making, alongside concerns regarding access to specialist services. Notably, 25% of specialists favoured a flexible interpretative approach beyond current standard criteria. The majority supported the need for updated guidance and improved description of specific ECG indices, including ventricular ectopy (83%), QRS fragmentation (83%), and low-amplitude QRS complexes (78%), alongside recognition of the potential role of artificial intelligence–based models. Gaps in knowledge, training, and practice were identified, and both groups emphasised medicolegal and pathway challenges. Conclusions This international survey provides a contemporary real-world overview of ECG interpretation and PPS practice in athletes across Europe and revealed substantial heterogeneity in access to services, training, interpretation uncertainty, referral pathways, and medico-legal frameworks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Androulakis et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in ECG interpretation and preparticipation screening in athletes (n=242). Sports cardiology specialization vs. Non-specialist medical professionals was evaluated on Real-world use of contemporary international ECG interpretation criteria, clinical decision-making, and perceived need for updated guidance. Surveying 242 European clinicians revealed that 25% of sports cardiologists favored flexible athlete ECG interpretation, and 83% supported updated guidance on ventricular ectopy and QRS fragmentation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: