This post was authored by Benjamin Levine, MD, FACC, member of the ACC’ Sports and Exercise Cardiology Section.

The ACC’s Sports Cardiology Summit has become an event that those of us in sports medicine look forward to each year. The summit provides a unique forum for cardiologists, sports medicine physicians, pediatricians, primary care physicians, physician assistants, cardiovascular care associates and other health care professionals with an interest in sports medicine to come together to discuss important topics in the care and treatment of athletes.

This year’s summit, which took place in September in Indianapolis, provided closer looks at topics ranging from basic exercise physiology and endurance sports cardiology to “real-world” lessons learned from treating athletes in sports like baseball, basketball and football, to sports cardiology in youth and/or athletes with cardiac conditions. I personally had the privilege of participating in a focused session on the latest in sports cardiology research, where I addressed the challenges, opportunities and future directions of research.

One of the hottest topics of discussion about needed research has been whether or not to mandate screening with electrocardiograms (ECGs) in sports. The ACC and the American Heart Association coincidentally released recommendations for congenital and genetic heart disease screenings in youth around the same time as the Summit that recommended the use of a 14-element checklist when evaluating healthy, young individuals ages 12-25 for congenital and genetic heart disease rather than initial screening using ECGs. The groups stressed that use of ECGs to detect underlying congenital and genetic heart disease in such individuals in addition to employing the checklist has not been shown to save lives, and may cause harm. Moving forward, in my opinion, no more debates or editorials are necessary about this topic; only additional data and research will help us answer the question if broad-based ECG enhanced screenings do more good than harm.

Addressing differences in cardiovascular structure, function and susceptibility to adverse events as a function of sex, race and training history are other key areas where future research is warranted. For example, studies have shown differences in female and male athletes undergoing the same training regimen, and women have much lower event rates than men for reasons that are unclear. Athletes of African descent may also be unique in undefined ways, as they have substantially more ventricular hypertrophy than Caucasian athletes (both men and women). Whether this difference is a function of genetics, diet, or different loading conditions on the heart (both during and after training) has not been defined, and could provide clues to the apparently high risk of sudden cardiac death in some sports that are dominated by athletes of African descent. Identifying and understanding these differences requires further research to help providers determine normal adaptation vs. pathology.

The Sports Cardiology Summit at a minimum provides an important opportunity to recognize the differences and needs of athletes when it comes to cardiac and other care. It is also a reminder that patients don’t have to be professional athletes to have different care needs. They can be marathon runners, adult recreational sport players, youth who are participating in high school and college athletic teams, etc. In many ways this makes all of us sports and exercise cardiologists in our own right. Thankfully, the Summit is the place where we can ask questions and learn from our peers as we navigate the challenges and opportunities associated with this specialized care.

This post is part of a series of posts from the ACC’s Sports and Exercise Cardiology Section. For more information about the Section, click here. Follow the sports and exercise cardiology conversation on Twitter with the hashtag #SportsCardio.

< Back to Listings