Login
Search
Search
0 Dates
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
0 Events
CPC 2018
CPC 2019
Curso de Atualização em Medicina Cardiovascular 2019
Reunião Anual Conjunta dos Grupos de Estudo de Cirurgia Cardíaca, Doenças Valvulares e Ecocardiografia da SPC
CPC 2020
CPC 2021
CPC 2022
CPC 2023
CPC 2024
0 Topics
A. Basics
B. Imaging
C. Arrhythmias and Device Therapy
D. Heart Failure
E. Coronary Artery Disease, Acute Coronary Syndromes, Acute Cardiac Care
F. Valvular, Myocardial, Pericardial, Pulmonary, Congenital Heart Disease
G. Aortic Disease, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Stroke
H. Interventional Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery
I. Hypertension
J. Preventive Cardiology
K. Cardiovascular Disease In Special Populations
L. Cardiovascular Pharmacology
M. Cardiovascular Nursing
N. E-Cardiology / Digital Health, Public Health, Health Economics, Research Methodology
O. Basic Science
P. Other
0 Themes
01. History of Cardiology
02. Clinical Skills
03. Imaging
04. Arrhythmias, General
05. Atrial Fibrillation
06. Supraventricular Tachycardia (non-AF)
07. Syncope and Bradycardia
08. Ventricular Arrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death (SCD)
09. Device Therapy
10. Chronic Heart Failure
11. Acute Heart Failure
12. Coronary Artery Disease (Chronic)
13. Acute Coronary Syndromes
14. Acute Cardiac Care
15. Valvular Heart Disease
16. Infective Endocarditis
17. Myocardial Disease
18. Pericardial Disease
19. Tumors of the Heart
20. Congenital Heart Disease and Pediatric Cardiology
21. Pulmonary Circulation, Pulmonary Embolism, Right Heart Failure
22. Aortic Disease
23. Peripheral Vascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
24. Stroke
25. Interventional Cardiology
26. Cardiovascular Surgery
27. Hypertension
28. Risk Factors and Prevention
29. Rehabilitation and Sports Cardiology
30. Cardiovascular Disease in Special Populations
31. Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy
32. Cardiovascular Nursing
33. e-Cardiology / Digital Health
34. Public Health and Health Economics
35. Research Methodology
36. Basic Science
37. Miscellanea
0 Resources
Abstract
Slides
Vídeo
Report
CLEAR FILTERS
Left ventricular systolic function in athletes and sedentary controls: A study by 2D and 3D Speckle Tracking Echocardiography
Session:
Posters 4 - Écran 7 - Prevenção
Speaker:
Pedro von Hafe Leite
Congress:
CPC 2019
Topic:
J. Preventive Cardiology
Theme:
29. Rehabilitation and Sports Cardiology
Subtheme:
29.3 Sports Cardiology
Session Type:
Posters
FP Number:
---
Authors:
Pedro Von Hafe Leite; Bebiana Faria; Geraldo Dias; Ana Filipa Cardoso; Mário Lourenço; Filipa Castro; Jorge Silva; Filipa Canário Almeida; Olga Azevedo; António Lourenço
Abstract
<p><strong>Background</strong>: Athlete's heart is associated with physiological remodeling as a consequence of repetitive cardiac loading. Two-dimensional (2D) speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE) is a modality for the assessment of systolic and diastolic myocardial deformation in a broad variety of clinical scenarios, including adaptive changes of the athlete's heart. However, 2D-STE has some limitations, potentially overcome by three-dimensional (3D) STE.</p> <p><strong>Purpose:</strong> To compare left ventricular global longitudinal strain (GLS), obtained by 2D and 3D- STE, between athletes and sedentary healthy controls.</p> <p><strong>Methods</strong>: We included 42 consecutive male professional soccer players and 30 sedentary male healthy controls, matched by age and race. All subjects underwent echocardiographic examination with analysis of 2D and 3D GLS and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).</p> <p><strong>Results</strong>: Mean age was 22.3 ± 4.2 in athletes and 25.9 ± 3.4 in sedentary controls.</p> <p>There was a statistically significant difference between the 3D and 2D GLS between athletes and controls, being worse in athletes in both cases (-17.24 ± 2.03 vs. -18.44 ± 1.53%, p = 0.020 and -18.44 ± 1.71 vs. -19.69 ± 1.83%, p = 0.011, respectively).</p> <p>LVEF was not statistically different between athletes and controls, either by 3D or 2D methods (62.74 ± 4.60 vs. 64.60 ± 5.01%, p = 0.056 and 60.00 ± 3.88 vs. 61.79 ± 2.98%, p = 0.159, respectively).</p> <p>In athletes, there was a strong correlation between 3D and 2D GLS, when the 2D GLS was better than -17% (Pearson correlation = 0.70, p < 0.001). For worse values than -17%, ??there was no statistical correlation between 2D and 3D GLS (p=0.823).</p> <p>In controls, there was a strong correlation between 2D and 3D GLS (Pearson correlation = 0.76, p<0.001).</p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong>: Male athletes present worse 2D and 3D-GLS compared to age and race-matched sedentary controls.</p> <p>There was a strong correlation between 2D and 3D GLS in both athletes and controls, except for athletes with 2D GLS worse than -17%, in whom no correlation was found. In this subgroup of athletes, 3D GLS was statistically worse than 2D GLS, raising the hypothesis of 3D GLS being superior to 2D GLS in the better stratification of the effect of exercise on cardiac systolic function.</p>
Slides
Our mission: To reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease
Visit our site