Bethesda Conference #36 and the European Society of Cardiology Consensus Recommendations Revisited. A Comparison of U.S. and European Criteria for Eligibility and Disqualification of Competitive Athletes With Cardiovascular Abnormalities

Antonio Pelliccia, Douglas P. Zipes, Barry J. Maron

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

204 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aspiration to reduce the risks of athletic field deaths prompted the American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) to establish consensus guidelines for eligibility/disqualification decisions in competitive athletes with cardiovascular abnormalities. Since 2005, the Bethesda Conference #36 and the ESC consensus documents have been relied upon by physicians from different parts of the world. The 2 consensus documents emanate from largely different cultural, social, and legal backgrounds existing in the U.S. and Europe and, although several recommendations are similar, in some instances the Bethesda Conference #36 and the ESC consensus documents suggest different approaches to disqualification decisions and implications for clinical practice, raising the possibility that confusion and discrepancies will contaminate the management of competitive athletes with cardiovascular disease. In the present article, the differences between the 2 documents are critically viewed, with special attention to genetic cardiovascular diseases relevant to sudden death in young athletes, through the prism of different cultural backgrounds, societal attitudes, and also perceptions regarding exposure to legal liability in the U.S. and Europe. In conclusion, it seems appropriate at some time to consider assembling updated recommendations for sports eligibility/disqualification that assimilate both the U.S. and European perspectives, with the aspiration of creating a unique and authoritative document applicable to the global sports medicine community.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1990-1996
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of the American College of Cardiology
Volume52
Issue number24
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 9 2008

Fingerprint

Cardiovascular Abnormalities
Athletes
Consensus
Cardiology
Sports
Cardiovascular Diseases
Legal Liability
Confusion
Sports Medicine
Inborn Genetic Diseases
Sudden Death
Guidelines
Physicians
Aspirations (Psychology)

Keywords

  • cardiovascular disease
  • competitive athletes
  • guidelines for eligibility/disqualification

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

@article{552664c5f4cb47fc8cd338fb887fa876,
title = "Bethesda Conference #36 and the European Society of Cardiology Consensus Recommendations Revisited. A Comparison of U.S. and European Criteria for Eligibility and Disqualification of Competitive Athletes With Cardiovascular Abnormalities",
abstract = "Aspiration to reduce the risks of athletic field deaths prompted the American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) to establish consensus guidelines for eligibility/disqualification decisions in competitive athletes with cardiovascular abnormalities. Since 2005, the Bethesda Conference #36 and the ESC consensus documents have been relied upon by physicians from different parts of the world. The 2 consensus documents emanate from largely different cultural, social, and legal backgrounds existing in the U.S. and Europe and, although several recommendations are similar, in some instances the Bethesda Conference #36 and the ESC consensus documents suggest different approaches to disqualification decisions and implications for clinical practice, raising the possibility that confusion and discrepancies will contaminate the management of competitive athletes with cardiovascular disease. In the present article, the differences between the 2 documents are critically viewed, with special attention to genetic cardiovascular diseases relevant to sudden death in young athletes, through the prism of different cultural backgrounds, societal attitudes, and also perceptions regarding exposure to legal liability in the U.S. and Europe. In conclusion, it seems appropriate at some time to consider assembling updated recommendations for sports eligibility/disqualification that assimilate both the U.S. and European perspectives, with the aspiration of creating a unique and authoritative document applicable to the global sports medicine community.",
keywords = "cardiovascular disease, competitive athletes, guidelines for eligibility/disqualification",
author = "Antonio Pelliccia and Zipes, {Douglas P.} and Maron, {Barry J.}",
year = "2008",
month = "12",
day = "9",
doi = "10.1016/j.jacc.2008.08.055",
language = "English",
volume = "52",
pages = "1990--1996",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Cardiology",
issn = "0735-1097",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "24",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bethesda Conference #36 and the European Society of Cardiology Consensus Recommendations Revisited. A Comparison of U.S. and European Criteria for Eligibility and Disqualification of Competitive Athletes With Cardiovascular Abnormalities

AU - Pelliccia, Antonio

AU - Zipes, Douglas P.

AU - Maron, Barry J.

PY - 2008/12/9

Y1 - 2008/12/9

N2 - Aspiration to reduce the risks of athletic field deaths prompted the American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) to establish consensus guidelines for eligibility/disqualification decisions in competitive athletes with cardiovascular abnormalities. Since 2005, the Bethesda Conference #36 and the ESC consensus documents have been relied upon by physicians from different parts of the world. The 2 consensus documents emanate from largely different cultural, social, and legal backgrounds existing in the U.S. and Europe and, although several recommendations are similar, in some instances the Bethesda Conference #36 and the ESC consensus documents suggest different approaches to disqualification decisions and implications for clinical practice, raising the possibility that confusion and discrepancies will contaminate the management of competitive athletes with cardiovascular disease. In the present article, the differences between the 2 documents are critically viewed, with special attention to genetic cardiovascular diseases relevant to sudden death in young athletes, through the prism of different cultural backgrounds, societal attitudes, and also perceptions regarding exposure to legal liability in the U.S. and Europe. In conclusion, it seems appropriate at some time to consider assembling updated recommendations for sports eligibility/disqualification that assimilate both the U.S. and European perspectives, with the aspiration of creating a unique and authoritative document applicable to the global sports medicine community.

AB - Aspiration to reduce the risks of athletic field deaths prompted the American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) to establish consensus guidelines for eligibility/disqualification decisions in competitive athletes with cardiovascular abnormalities. Since 2005, the Bethesda Conference #36 and the ESC consensus documents have been relied upon by physicians from different parts of the world. The 2 consensus documents emanate from largely different cultural, social, and legal backgrounds existing in the U.S. and Europe and, although several recommendations are similar, in some instances the Bethesda Conference #36 and the ESC consensus documents suggest different approaches to disqualification decisions and implications for clinical practice, raising the possibility that confusion and discrepancies will contaminate the management of competitive athletes with cardiovascular disease. In the present article, the differences between the 2 documents are critically viewed, with special attention to genetic cardiovascular diseases relevant to sudden death in young athletes, through the prism of different cultural backgrounds, societal attitudes, and also perceptions regarding exposure to legal liability in the U.S. and Europe. In conclusion, it seems appropriate at some time to consider assembling updated recommendations for sports eligibility/disqualification that assimilate both the U.S. and European perspectives, with the aspiration of creating a unique and authoritative document applicable to the global sports medicine community.

KW - cardiovascular disease

KW - competitive athletes

KW - guidelines for eligibility/disqualification

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=56849109348&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=56849109348&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.08.055

DO - 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.08.055

M3 - Article

VL - 52

SP - 1990

EP - 1996

JO - Journal of the American College of Cardiology

JF - Journal of the American College of Cardiology

SN - 0735-1097

IS - 24

ER -