4.3 Article

Preparticipation Cardiovascular Screening: An Infrastructure Assessment in Collegiate Athletics

Journal

CLINICAL JOURNAL OF SPORT MEDICINE
Volume 30, Issue 4, Pages 315-320

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/JSM.0000000000000616

Keywords

sudden cardiac death; electrocardiogram; preparticipation examination; screening; infrastructure

Funding

  1. National Collegiate Athletic Association Sports Science Institute
  2. American Medical Society for Sports Medicine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To assess the available infrastructure for secondary testing after preparticipation cardiovascular screening of collegiate athletes. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) athletic programs Participants: Team physicians. Interventions: Online survey distributed by the NCAA and American Medical Society for Sports Medicine. Main Outcome Measures: Availability of secondary cardiovascular diagnostic testing and services. Results: Team physicians from 235 schools completed the assessment, representing 21% of all NCAA schools. Ninety (38.3%) NCAA team physicians reported screening athletes using electrocardiogram (ECG). Division I schools were more likely than Division II and III schools to perform both screening ECG (RR, 2.38,P< 0.0001) and echocardiogram (RR, 2.83,P= 0.01). More than 97% of schools had access to resting echocardiogram, stress ECG/echocardiogram, and Holter monitoring within 25 miles with no significant variability between divisions, regions, or size of undergraduate student body. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and electrophysiology studies were available within 25 miles of more than 80% of schools, and genetics testing was available within 25 miles for 64.8%. Conclusions: Secondary testing for cardiovascular abnormalities seems to be readily available for NCAA athletes, regardless of division, region, or school size.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available