4.4 Article

Preparticipation Screening of Athletes: The Prevalence of Positive Family History

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcdd10040183

关键词

sudden cardiac death; athlete; preparticipation screening

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The prevalence and predictors of positive family history (FH) of sudden cardiac death (SCD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in Czech athletes were assessed using four preparticipation screening (PPS) systems. It was found that the prevalence of positive FH was 1.28% and it was significantly associated with the maximum heart rate at the peak of the exercise test. The study also revealed differences in detection rates between PPS protocols, suggesting the need for further research to determine the optimal method of FH collection.
Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a leading cause of death among athletes, and those with a positive family history (FH) of SCD and/or cardiovascular disease (CVD) may be at increased risk. The primary objective of this study was to assess the prevalence and predictors of positive FH of SCD and CVD in athletes using four widely used preparticipation screening (PPS) systems. The secondary objective was to compare the functionality of the screening systems. In a cohort of 13,876 athletes, 1.28% had a positive FH in at least one PPS system. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified the maximum heart rate as significantly associated with positive FH (OR = 1.042, 95% CI = 1.027-1.056, p < 0.001). The highest prevalence of positive FH was found using the PPE-4 system (1.20%), followed by FIFA, AHA, and IOC systems (1.11%, 0.89%, and 0.71%, respectively). In conclusion, the prevalence of positive FH for SCD and CVD in Czech athletes was found to be 1.28%. Furthermore, positive FH was associated with a higher maximum heart rate at the peak of the exercise test. The findings of this study revealed significant differences in detection rates between PPS protocols, so further research is needed to determine the optimal method of FH collection.

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

4.4
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