| Title |
Inherited cardiomyopathies and sports participation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Netherlands Heart Journal, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12471-018-1079-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A. Zorzi, A. Pelliccia, D. Corrado |
| Abstract |
Competitive sports activity is associated with an increased risk of sudden cardiovascular death in adolescents and young adults with inherited cardiomyopathies. Many young subjects aspire to continue competitive sport after a diagnosis of cardiomyopathy and the clinician is frequently confronted with the problem of eligibility and the request of designing specific exercise programs. Since inherited cardiomyopathies are the leading cause of sudden cardiovascular death during sports performance, a conservative approach implying disqualification of affected athletes from most competitive athletic disciplines is recommended by all the available international guidelines. On the other hand, we know that the health benefits of practicing recreational sports activity can overcome the potential arrhythmic risk in these patients, provided that the type and level of exercise are tailored on the basis of the specific risk profile of the underlying cardiomyopathy. This article will review the available evidence on the sports-related risk of sudden cardiac death and the recommendations regarding eligibility of individuals affected by inherited cardiomyopathies for sports activities. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 67% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 71 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 15% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 18% |
| Unknown | 20 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 31% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 8% |
| Sports and Recreations | 5 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 25 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 June 2020.
All research outputs
#13,580,944
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Netherlands Heart Journal
#239
of 519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,939
of 439,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Netherlands Heart Journal
#7
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,449 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.