4.5 Article

Long-term endurance sport is a risk factor for development of lone atrial flutter

期刊

HEART
卷 97, 期 11, 页码 918-922

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/hrt.2010.216150

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To evaluate whether in a population of patients with 'lone atrial flutter', the proportion of those engaged in long-term endurance sports is higher than that observed in the general population. Design An age and sex-matched retrospective case-control study. Setting A database with 638 consecutive patients who underwent ablation for atrial flutter at the University of Leuven. Sixty-one patients (55 men, 90%) fitted the inclusion criteria of 'lone atrial flutter', ie, aged 65 years or less, without documented atrial fibrillation and without identifiable underlying disease (including hypertension). Sex, age and inclusion criteria-matched controls, two for each flutter patient, were selected in a general practice in the same geographical region. Methods Sports activity was evaluated by detailed questionnaires, which were available in 58 flutter patients (95%). A transthoracic echocardiogram was performed in all lone flutter patients. Main outcome measures Types of sports, number of years of participation and average number of hours per week. Results The proportion of regular sportsmen (>= 3 h of sports practice per week) among patients with lone atrial flutter was significantly higher than that observed in the general population (50% vs 17%; p < 0.0001). The proportion of sportsmen engaged in long-term endurance sports (participation in cycling, running or swimming for >= 3 h/week) was also significantly higher in lone flutter patients than in controls (31% vs 8%; p=0.0003). Those flutter patients performing endurance sports had a larger left atrium than non-sportsmen (p=0.04, by one-way analysis of variance). Conclusion A history of endurance sports and subsequent left atrial remodelling may be a risk factor for the development of atrial flutter.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据