4.6 Review

The athlete's heart is a proarrhythmic heart, and what that means for clinical decision making

期刊

EUROPACE
卷 20, 期 9, 页码 1401-1411

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/europace/eux294

关键词

Sports; Athlete's heart; Arrhythmia; Eligibility

资金

  1. Boston Scientific through the University of Leuven
  2. Boehringer-Ingelheim
  3. Bayer
  4. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  5. Pfizer
  6. Daiichi-Sankyo
  7. Cardiome
  8. University of Hasselt from Bayer
  9. University of Antwerp from Medtronic
  10. University of Antwerp from Boston Scientific
  11. University of Antwerp from Bracco Imaging Europe

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recurring questions when dealing with arrhythmias in athletes are about the cause of the arrhythmia and, more importantly, about the eligibility of the athlete to continue sports activities. In essence, the relation between sports and arrhythmias can be understood along three lines: sports as arrhythmia trigger on top of an underlying problem, sports as arrhythmic substrate promotor, or sports as substrate inducer. Often, there is no sharp divider line between these entities. The athlete's heart, a heart that adapts so magically to cope with the demands of exercise, harbours many structural and functional changes that by themselves predispose to arrhythmia development, at the atrial, nodal and ventricular levels. In essence, the athlete's heart is a proarrhythmic heart. This review describes the changes in the athlete's heart that are related to arrhythmic expression and focuses on what this concept means for clinical decision making. The concept of the athlete's heart as a proarrhythmic heart creates a framework for evaluation and counselling of athletes, yet also highlights the difficulty in predicting the magnitude of associated risk. The management uncertainties are discussed for specific conditions like extreme bradycardic remodelling, atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia, atrial fibrillation and flutter, and ventricular arrhythmias.

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

4.6
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