4.7 Article

Running:: the risk of coronary events -: Prevalence and prognostic relevance of coronary atherosclerosis in marathon runners

Journal

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
Volume 29, Issue 15, Pages 1903-1910

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehn163

Keywords

marathon running; cardiovascular risk stratification; coronary artery calcium; late gadolinium enhancement

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims To quantify the prevalence of coronary artery calcification (CAC) in relation to cardiovascular risk factors in marathon runners, and to study its role for myocardial damage and coronary events. Methods and results In 108 apparently healthy male marathon runners aged >= 50 years, with >= 5 marathon competitions during the previous three years, the running history, Framingham risk score (FRS), CAC, and presence of myocardial late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) were measured. Control groups were matched by age (8:1) and FRS (2:1) from the Heinz Nixdorf Recall Study. The FRS in marathon runners was lower than in age-matched controls (7 vs. 11%, P < 0.0001). However, the CAC distribution was similar in marathon runners and age-matched controls (median CAC: 36 vs. 38, P = 0.36) and higher in marathon runners than in FRS-matched controls (median CAC: 36 vs. 12, P = 0.02). CAC percentile values and number of marathons independently predicted the presence of LGE (prevalence = 12%) (P = 0.02 for both). During follow-up after 21.3 +/- 2.8 months, four runners with CAC >= 100 experienced coronary events. Event-free survival was inversely related to CAC burden (P = 0.018). Conclusion Conventional cardiovascular risk stratification underestimates the CAC burden in presumably healthy marathon runners. As CAC burden and frequent marathon running seem to correlate with subclinical myocardial damage, an increased awareness of a potentially higher than anticipated coronary risk is warranted.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available