Attenzione: i dati modificati non sono ancora stati salvati. Per confermare inserimenti o cancellazioni di voci è necessario confermare con il tasto SALVA/INSERISCI in fondo alla pagina
Home
Sfoglia
Macrotipologie
& tipologie
Autore
Titolo
Riviste
Serie
EN
Italiano
English
LOGIN
Home
>
Presenter Index
>
Search Results
>
Presentation Detail
Quick Links
Home
Browse
Advanced Search
Presenter Index
My Itinerary
Presentation Abstract
Title:
P2-87 -
Resting RV Performance Assessment in Young Athletes: A Comparison Between 3D and 2D Echocardiography
Authors:
Alessio De Luca, Jr., Laura Stefani, Giorgio Galanti. Sports Medicine Centre, Florence, Italy
Abstract Body:
Background:
Right Ventricle (RV) ejection fraction (EF) of young athletes, where the onset of the “athletes heart” is not yet recognizable , is currently assessed by 2D - RV area change. The role of a 3D -RV function assessment is not yet well investigated in these subjects. The study aims to analyze RV function in young athletes from different kind of sports by these two methods.
Methods:
25 young trained athletes( 20soccers ,5 basketball) aged 20 ±3 yrs matched with 20 sedentary controls, were studied by 2D and 3D-RV methods (Image Arena, Tomtec) measuring either RV diastolic (RVDV) and systolic (RVSV) volumes , or EF. Data were compared by ANOVA test.
Results:
All the
EF, RVDV and RVSV values resulted within the normal range. However 3D - RV volumes were slightly higher in athletes (RVDV: 106.14 ± 30.3 ml; RVSV: 50.74 ± 15.25 ml ) than in sedentary (88.0 ± 41.36
ml; 40.67 ± 23.96 ml). On the contrary the 2D volumes resulted to be lower in athletes, even if not significantly, (RVDV: 43.40 ± 13.11; RVSV: 21.13 ± 6.5 ) than in sedentary (45.33 ± 14.05 ml; vs. 22.0 ± 7.8 ml). The EF values, by the two methods, were slightly but not significantly lower in athletes (3D-RV: 52.10 ± 6.4 ;2D-AC: 50.865 ± 6.5) than in sedentary( 3D RV:55.61 ± 7.4 ml; 2D AC: 52.0 ± 4.0 ml). Significant differences were on the contrary found comparing 3D-RV and 2D-AC volumes within each group (RVDV: p=.001 for athletes and p<.001 for controls, RVSV: p<.04 for athletes and p<.001 for controls) None significant difference for the EF was found.
Conclusions:
Despite the normal range of RV chamber values is currently u