From an evidence-based perspective, cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) is a well-supported assessment technique in both the United States (US) and Europe. The combination of standard exercise testing (ET) (ie, progressive exercise provocation in association with serial electrocardiograms [ECG], hemodynamics, oxygen saturation, and subjective symptoms) and measurement of ventilatory gas exchange amounts to a superior method to: 1) accurately quantify cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), 2) delineate the physiologic system(s) underlying exercise responses, which can be applied as a means to identify the exercise-limiting pathophysiologic mechanism(s) and/or performance differences, and 3) formulate function-based prognostic stratification. Cardiopulmonary ET certainly carries an additional cost as well as competency requirements and is not an essential component of evaluation in all patient populations. However, there are several conditions of confirmed, suspected, or unknown etiology where the data gained from this form of ET is highly valuable in terms of clinical decision making
From an evidence-based perspective, cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) is a well-supported assessment technique in both the United States (US) and Europe. The combination of standard exercise testing (ET) [i.e. progressive exercise provocation in association with serial electrocardiograms (ECGs), haemodynamics, oxygen saturation, and subjective symptoms] and measurement of ventilatory gas exchange amounts to a superior method to: (i) accurately quantify cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), (ii) delineate the physiologic system(s) underlying exercise responses, which can be applied as a means to identify the exercise-limiting pathophysiological mechanism(s) and/or performance differences, and (iii) formulate function-based prognostic stratification. Cardiopulmonary ET certainly carries an additional cost as well as competency requirements and is not an essential component of evaluation in all patient populations. However, there are several conditions of confirmed, suspected, or unknown aetiology where the data gained from this form of ET is highly valuable in terms of clinical decision making.1
Introduction: The optimal pre-participation screening strategy to identify athletes at risk for exercise-induced cardiovascular events is unknown. We therefore aimed to compare the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) pre-participation screening strategies against extensive cardiovascular evaluations in identifying high-risk individuals among 35.50- year-old apparently healthy men. Methods: We applied ACSM and ESC pre-participation screenings to 25 men participating in a study on first-time marathon running. We compared screening outcomes against medical history, physical examination, electrocardiography, blood tests, echocardiography, cardiopulmonary exercise testing, and magnetic resonance imaging. Results: ACSM screening classified all participants as "medical clearance not necessary."ESC screening classified two participants as "high-risk."Extensive cardiovascular evaluations revealed ≥1 minor abnormality and/or cardiovascular condition in 17 participants, including three subjects with mitral regurgitation and one with a small atrial septal defect. Eleven participants had dyslipidaemia, six had hypertension, and two had premature atherosclerosis. Ultimately, three (12%) subjects had a serious cardiovascular condition warranting sports restrictions: aortic aneurysm, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), and myocardial fibrosis post-myocarditis. Of these three participants, only one had been identified as "high-risk"by the ESC screening (for dyslipidaemia, not HCM) and none by the ACSM screening. Conclusion: Numerous occult cardiovascular conditions are missed when applying current ACSM/ ESC screening strategies to apparently healthy middle-aged men engaging in their first high-intensity endurance sports event.
