4.7 Article

Serial left ventricular adaptations in world-class professional cyclists - Implications for disease screening and follow-up

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.02.057

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this research was to study long-term left ventricular (LV) adaptations in very-high-level endurance athletes. BACKGROUND Knowledge of cardiac changes in athletes, who are at particularly high risk of sudden cardiac death, is mandatory to detect hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) or dilated (DCM) cardiomyopathy. METHODS We carried out echocardiographic examinations on 286 cyclists (group A) and 52 matched sedentary volunteers (group Q; 148 cyclists participated in the 1995 Tour de France race (group A1), 138 in the 1998 race (group A2), and 37 in both (group 13). RESULTS In groups A, A1, A2, and C, respectively, diastolic left ventricular diameter (LVID) was 60.1 +/- 3.9 mm, 59.2 +/- 3.8 mm, 61.0 +/- 3.9 mm, and 49.0 +/- 4.3 mm (A vs. C and Al vs. A2, p < 0.0001), and maximal wall thickness (WT) was 11.1 +/- 1.3 mm, 11.6 +/- 1.3 mm, 10.6 +/- 1.1 mm, and 8.6 +/- 1.0 mm (A vs. C and A1 vs. A2, p < 0.0001). Among group A, 147 (51.4%) had LVID >60 mm; 17 of them had also a below normal (<52%) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Wall thickness exceeded 13 rum in 25 athletes (8.7%) (always <15 mm), 23 with LVID >55 mm. In group B, LVID increased (58.3 +/- 4.8 mm to 60.3 +/- 4.2 mm, p < 0.001) and WT decreased (11.8 +/- 1.2 mm to 10.8 +/- 1.2 mm, p < 0.001) with time. CONCLUSIONS Over one-half of these athletes exhibited unusual LV dilation, along with a reduced LVEF in 11.6% (17 of 147), compatible with the diagnosis of DCM. Increased WT was less common (always < 15 mm) and scarce without LV dilation (<1%), eliminating the diagnosis of HCM. Serial examinations showed evidence of further LV dilation along with wall thinning. These results might have important implications for screening in athletes. (C) 2004 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

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

4.7
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