4.5 Article

Training-specific changes in cardiac structure and function: a prospective and longitudinal assessment of competitive athletes

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 104, Issue 4, Pages 1121-1128

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01170.2007

Keywords

exercise physiology; cardiac remodeling; athlete's heart

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This prospective, longitudinal study examined the effects of participation in team-based exercise training on cardiac structure and function. Competitive endurance athletes (EA, n = 40) and strength athletes (SA, n = 24) were studied with echocardiography at baseline and after 90 days of team training. Left ventricular (LV) mass increased by 11% in EA (116 +/- 18 vs. 130 +/- 19 g/m(2); P < 0.001) and by 12% in SA (115 +/- 14 vs. 132 +/- 11 g/m(2); P < 0.001; P value for the compared Delta = NS). EA experienced LV dilation (end-diastolic volume: 66.6 +/- 10.0 vs. 74.7 +/- 9.8 ml/m(2), Delta = 8.0 +/- 4.2 ml/m(2); P < 0.001), enhanced diastolic function (lateral E': 10.9 +/- 0.8 vs. 12.4 +/- 0.9 cm/s, P < 0.001), and biatrial enlargement, while SA experience LV hypertrophy (posterior wall: 4.5 +/- 0.5 vs. 5.2 +/- 0.5 mm/m(2), P < 0.001) and diminished diastolic function (E' basal lateral LV: 11.6 +/- 1.3 vs. 10.2 +/- 1.4 cm/s, P < 0.001). Further, EA experienced right ventricular (RV) dilation (end-diastolic area: 1,460 +/- 220 vs. 1,650 +/- 200 mm/m(2), P < 0.001) coupled with enhanced systolic and diastolic function (E' basal RV: 10.3 +/- 1.5 vs. 11.4 +/- 1.7 cm/s, P < 0.001), while SA had no change in RV parameters. We conclude that participation in 90 days of competitive athletics produces significant training-specific changes in cardiac structure and function. EA develop biventricular dilation with enhanced diastolic function, while SA develop isolated, concentric left ventricular hypertrophy with diminished diastolic relaxation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available