Cardiac screening of athletes with ECG – is it time to focus on the older athletic population?

Roy Shephard’s article in the May edition of CJSM , ‘Is Electrocardiogram Screening of North American Athletes Now Warranted?’ discusses the ongoing controversy of the appropriateness of the use of ECGs in screening College athletes for causes of sudden cardiac death. I’m wondering if it is now the time for us to focus our thoughts on ECG screening of the older athletic population.

My own awareness of the issues around ECG screening of athletes started some 20 years ago when I presented a session on ‘The Athlete’s Heart’ as part of my Physiology degree studies at University College, London. I remember being quizzed at the end of my presentation by the Course Tutor on the effects of detraining, and wishing that I had done a little more reading to back up my claims when I gave my answer stating that, as the adaptations to the normal heart were the result of normal physiological mechanisms, detraining should always result in changes to pre-training baseline on the ECG reflecting the anatomical and physiological detraining effects. His face at the time told me the story that he wasn’t entirely convinced, but I think I got away with it!

I have continued to revisit the issues and re-evaluate the evidence as my career in Sport and Exercise Medicine (SEM) has progressed. My first clinical experience of preparticipation screening came almost a decade ago whilst working in New Zealand when I was involved in providing care for New Zealand Academy of Sport athletes. Since then, another essay on the subject during my MSc SEM studies, teaching MSc and BSc students on an annual basis on ‘The Athlete’s Heart and Sudden Cardiac Death,’ and most recently conducting screening as part of the Football Association’s mandatory screening programme of young footballers, has kept me in touch with emerging research and clinical practice.

One thought has remained with me over the years – that of the importance of fundamental epidemiological principles such as Wilson’s criteria in screening, and linked to those, the need to consider what we are trying to achieve by screening . Essentially, the cardiac screening process seeks to identify individuals at an increased risk of sudden cardiac death. What we do not wish to do is to prevent healthy individuals from enjoying all of the benefits of sport and exercise. Sudden Cardiac Death in the young is still a rare event, mainly due to the underlying age-related population prevalence of associated conditions such as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, but what about the older population?

The emerging importance of physical activity as an important, under-recognised independent risk factor for morbidity and mortality, often associated with lifestyle diseases such as type II diabetes mellitus, has led to an increasing global effort to engage the population in regular exercise as part of both primary and secondary disease prevention strategies. Whilst it is indisputable that the population benefits of exercise far outweigh the associated risks, it is nevertheless true that the risk of sudden cardiac death during exercise in the over 35’s is considerably higher than in the younger population due to the higher prevalence of associated conditions, mainly coronary heart disease.

ACSM guidelines and AHA risk stratification criteria for exercise testing and prescription offer clinicians guidance in the risk stratification of individuals who engage with healthcare professionals prior to becoming physically active, and point towards the appropriate use of ECG and Exercise Stress Testing as part of the preparticipation evaluation process. However, many individuals, including the older population who regularly exercise or those who may be about to commence regular exercise having been sedentary, will not come under the care of a healthcare professional. These individuals are therefore unlikely to participate in cardiac screening programmes.

Many questions about population cardiac screening prior to participation in sport and exercise come to mind, including :

1) What is the risk / benefit ratio and cost effectiveness of the adoption of ECG screening and exercise stress testing as per ACSM and AHA guidelines on a population basis for those wishing to engage in exercise?

2) How regularly should ECG screening and cardiac stress testing as part of preparticipation evaluation on an ongoing basis be conducted in the older athletic population?

3) What is the best and most appropriate way to engage older individuals involved in exercising, or about to become physically active, in order to conduct screening?

4) Should we be adopting targeted screening including ECG and cardiac stress testing in the older population who are involved in regular exercise?

My greatest concern is for the safety of the older, sedentary individual who decides to take up the sport they previously played perhaps 20 years ago at College, or perhaps who wishes to participate in a 10K run for a local charity, and who does not seek appropriate healthcare advice prior to increasing their physical activity levels.

Should we be focussing our efforts more at population level on screening these older individuals when attempting to prevent sudden cardiac death related to exercise?

Welcome to the Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine Blog

For those of you who might be new to all this, blogs (or web-logs as they were once known) have evolved from online diaries where individuals recorded their accounts of their personal lives. At the last count, there were over 180 million blogs in existence and now it is the turn of CJSM to enter the Blogosphere.

With the advent of the internet and social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter and their unique ability to allow for almost instantaneous communication and interaction, the ever-improving availability and affordability of electronic devices, and the move towards paperless methods of communication, these are exciting times for CJSM.

We have three main ambitions for the CJSM blog :

1) To inform, signpost, and educate readers about topics and current issues in the world of Sport and Exercise Medicine ;

2) To stimulate debate and discussion  ;

3) To create a vibrant and active online community where readers can share their knowledge and experience so that we can learn from each other.

We will be highlighting recent research from the world of Sport and Exercise Medicine, with links to both our current and past Journal content and to other sources including both peer-reviewed Journals and websites. In addition, we will be discussing up-to-date current affairs in the world of Sport and Medicine.

Both subscribers and non-subscribers to CJSM will be able to read and respond to blog posts on the CJSM Blog, and we hope to engage a wider Sport and Exercise Medicine community in order to advance the Practice of Sport and Exercise Medicine.

From time to time, we will have guest bloggers to discuss topics of particular relevance, and we would be happy to hear of your ideas for topics for discussion. Let us know if there’s anyone in particular you’d like to hear from, and we’ll do our best to make it happen.

Most of all, we hope that you will find the blog useful, that you will engage with our blog and take an active part in the discussion, and that you will have fun along the way.

Looking forward to getting to know you better. Let the blogging commence!

Pre-game intravenous hyperhydration, anyone?

The editorial in this month’s CJSM by Coombes and colleagues on Intravenous Rehydration in the National Football League highlights the widespread prevalence of the practice of pre-game hyperhydration as reported in the study by Fitzsimmons and colleagues, also in this month’s Journal here .

Fitzsimmons and colleagues surveyed the head athletic trainers of 32 NFL teams using an online survey tool and managed to achieve an impressive 100% response rate. They found that 75% of all teams had used pre-game hyperhydration with iv fluids, with an average of 5 to 7 players per team per game receiving intravenous fluids prior to play. The most common reasons for this strategy cited by trainers were to prevent muscle cramps (23 out of 24), prevent dehydration (19), at the request of the player (17), to prevent heat illness (14), and to improve player exercise tolerance (8).

It is somewhat alarming to find out that this practice is so widespread, especially in view of the fact that iv fluid administration pre-competition and intra-competition is clearly prohibited under the prohibited methods category of the 2011 WADA anti-doping code , and as discussed by Coombes and colleagues, it will be interesting to see how WADA and the NFL react to the results of this study.

An additional point to note, again as highlighted by Coombes and colleagues, is that there is practically no evidence that pre-game hyperhydration actually achieves any of the desired outcomes cited by trainers.

This study highlights yet another example of a dubious and potentially dangerous practice being adopted by elite teams in the absence of evidence of effectiveness of the intervention to achieve desired outcomes.

One wonders why such widespread practice is allowed to occur without action being taken against individual Clubs and players engaging in the use of these methods, or why the practice is not specifically banned under the code of the NFL.

Surely now is the time for a formal investigation into this issue?

CJSM would like to hear your views.