Editorials

The Preparticipation Evaluation: Evolving to Enhance the Health and Safety of Athletes



FREE PREVIEW Log in or buy this issue to read the full article. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles. Subscribe now.


FREE PREVIEW Subscribe or buy this issue. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles.

Am Fam Physician. 2007 Apr 1;75(7):983-984.

  Related Article

In 2005, representatives from six medical organizations (i.e., American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Sports Medicine, American Medical Society for Sports Medicine, American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine, and American Osteopathic Academy of Sports Medicine) convened a working group to update the Preparticipation Physical Evaluation monograph.1 The goals of this group included standardizing the preparticipation evaluation; reviewing expert opinion and position statements from major organizations; developing a process that is applicable in all settings; making evidence-based recommendations; and, most importantly, enhancing the health and safety of athletes. The updated monograph includes descriptions of the preparticipation evaluation process and reviews the rationale for the patient history and physical examination. All sections have been updated, and sections on administrative concerns and athletes with special needs have been added.

The extent of screening that is needed in the preparticipation evaluation to prevent sudden cardiac death is controversial. For example, should electrocardiography (ECG) or echocardiography be a routine part of the evaluation? The European Society of Cardiology recommends ECG for all high school and college athletes before athletic participation.2 A recent large population-based Italian study supports this approach.3 However, on careful review, the Italian study fails to support routine ECG testing for U.S. athletes during preparticipation screening.

Residents of the Veneto region of Italy (the setting of the Italian study) and the United States have different genetic considerations. Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy is the predominant cause of exertion-related sudden death in Italy,4 whereas hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is the predominant cause of such deaths in the United States.5,6 Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy is less common in the United States.

All of the athletes who died in the Italian study were cleared for athletic participation after undergoing an extensive cardiac work-up.3 During the study, there were 1.9 reported deaths per 100,000 person-years among screened athletes.3 In the United States, the rate of reported sudden deaths among high school and college athletes is lower (0.44 deaths per 100,000 person-years).5

In the Italian study, 2 percent of athletes were disqualified from competition because of cardiovascular causes.3 Were these athletes at risk of an exercise-related cardiac event? There were no deaths in the disqualified group, and it is unlikely that all of the athletes in this group adopted a sedentary lifestyle to avoid sudden death.7 Therefore, the 2 percent athletic disqualification rate is unacceptably high.

A screening study that included patient history, cardiovascular auscultation, blood pressure measurement, and ECG in 5,615 U.S. high school athletes showed that 22 of the athletes (0.4 percent) needed further cardiac testing.8 Sixteen of these athletes (0.3 percent) were not cleared for sports participation because of an abnormal ECG test result. None of the athletes had hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.8

In the Italian study, a significant percentage of the 55 athletes who died suddenly after obtaining athletic eligibility had positive history findings: six athletes had a family history of cardiomyopathy, sudden death, or both; 10 had palpitations on exertion; seven had syncope; and two had chest pain.3 These data suggest that the history portion of the preparticipation evaluation, including asking the right questions, is one of the best tools to detect athletes at risk of sudden cardiac death.

The Italian study was also limited because it was a population-based, observational study instead of a controlled comparison of screened and nonscreened athletes.7 Also, there was no control group that received more limited cardiac screening (e.g., no ECG).7 Of interest, coronary artery disease was more common in athletes than in the control population; therefore, the groups were not comparable.

In this issue of American Family Physician, Giese and colleagues review the preparticipation cardiovascular assessment; they also conclude that routine ECG, echocardiography, and exercise testing is not recommended.9

The preparticipation evaluation continues to evolve. With improving technology we can more easily collect and analyze data and outcomes and continue to modify preparticipation evaluation guidelines. In doing so, we will continue to make the health and safety of athletes a priority.

Address correspondence to Dennis A. Cardone, D.O., at dacardone@earthlink.net. Reprints are not available from the author.

Author disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

editor's note: The Preparticipation Physical Evaluation monograph is currently out of print. The sponsoring organizations are considering ways to reissue it, or make it available online.

 

REFERENCES

1. Preparticipation Physical Evaluation. 3rd ed. Minneapolis, Minn.: McGraw-Hill/Physician and Sportsmedicine, 2005.

2. Corrado D, Pelliccia A, Bjornstad HH, Vanhees L, Biffi A, Borjesson M, et al. Cardiovascular preparticipation screening of young competitive athletes for prevention of sudden death: proposal for a common European protocol: consensus statement of the Study Group of Sports Cardiology of the Working Group of Cardiac Rehabilitation and Exercise Physiology and the Working Group of Myocardial and Pericardial Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:516–24.

3. Corrado D, Basso C, Pavei A, Michieli P, Schiavon M, Thiene G. Trends in sudden cardiovascular death in young competitive athletes after implementation of a preparticipation screening program. JAMA. 2006;296:1593–601.

4. Corrado D, Basso C, Schiavon M, Thiene G. Screening for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in young athletes. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:364–9.

5. Van Camp SP, Bloor CM, Mueller FO, Cantu RC, Olson HG. Nontraumatic sports death in high school and college athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1995;27:641–7.

6. Maron BJ, Shirani J, Poliac LC, Mathenge R, Roberts WC, Mueller FO. Sudden death in young competitive athletes. Clinical, demographic, and pathological profiles. JAMA. 1996;276:199–204.

7. Thompson PD, Levine BD. Protecting athletes from sudden cardiac death. JAMA. 2006;296:1648–50.

8. Fuller CM, McNulty CM, Spring DA, Arger KM, Bruce SS, Chryssos BE, et al. Prospective screening of 5,615 high school athletes for risk of sudden cardiac death. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1997;29:1131–8.

9. Giese EA, O'Connor FG, Brennan FH, Depenbrock PJ, Oriscello RG. The athletic preparticipation evaluation: cardiovascular assessment. Am Fam Physician. 2007;75:1008–14.


Copyright © 2007 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact afpserv@aafp.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.

Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions


Article Tools

  • Print page
  • Share this page
  • AFP CME Quiz

Information From Industry

More in Pubmed

Navigate this Article