4.6 Article

Data from a nationwide registry on sports-related sudden cardiac deaths in Germany

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE CARDIOLOGY
卷 23, 期 6, 页码 649-656

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/2047487315594087

关键词

Athletes; cardiac screening; prevention; sudden death

资金

  1. German Heart Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Prospective national registries examining the incidence and aetiology of sports-related sudden cardiac death (SrSCD) not only in competitive athletes but also in recreational sports participants are uncommon. In May 2012, a prospective registry on SrSCD was installed to examine the incidence and particularly the aetiology of such events in the general population in Germany. Methods The registry consists of a web-based platform to record SrSCD cases. Media-monitoring and cooperation with 15 institutes of forensic medicine complemented the search. SrSCD was defined as death occurring during sports activity or up to 1 hour after its cessation, regardless of successful resuscitation. We included subjects at all levels of competition as well as recreational athletes. Results After 30 months of observation, 144 SrSCDs were recorded (mean age 46.816.2 years). The overall incidence was 1.2-1.5/million/year, with 97% being male. Most of the cases occurred in the context of non-elite competitive or recreational sports. Football and running were the most common disciplines. In subjects 35 years, myocarditis prevailed, whereas in athletes 35 years, CAD predominated by far. Few cardiomyopathies were observed. Conclusions In Germany, the largest proportion of SrSCDs occurs in middle-aged men during recreational sports or non-elite competitive sports. The distribution of cardiac diseases responsible for SrSCD seems to vary among European countries. Our findings may indicate the need for a larger focus on myocarditis prevention in the young as well as widening the screening scope to younger athletes below the elite' level and to senior athletes.

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

4.6
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