Are there gender differences in diagnostic and therapeutic sports cardiology care? Data from one sports cardiology centre

Abstract

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction Cardiovascular care of highly active individuals and competitive athletes has become an important topic in the field of sports medicine. The evolving understanding of exercise-induced cardiovascular remodeling in athletes has led to a more thorough characterization of physiological adaptation versus pathological dysfunction, but this distinction is often challenging because of diagnostic commonalities. The current data reflect sport-specific analyses of predominantly male athletes that may not be readily applicable to the female athletic heart. Another aspect of this care may be the different approach to indication, interpretation, and referral between men and women. Objective To determine whether there is a difference between men and women in access to sports cardiac care. Whether there is a difference between the indicated investigations, therapeutic care and recommendations made. Methods Retrospective analysis of the registry of all athletes of the Sports Cardiology Centre (SCC). Statistical comparison of the cohort of women and men in all parameters studied. Cohort: Between 1/2020-6/2022, a total of 115 cases of athletes, 100 men and 15 women (13%), aged 26 (+/-11 years), were examined and definitively closed in the SCC. Demographics in Table No. 1. Results There were no statistically significant differences in indications, symptoms, examination methodologies, percentage of diagnosis or eligibility for sport from a cardiological perspective. The only statistically significant difference seen was in the higher percentage of women taking regular pharmacological medication (hormonal contraception was not included in this category) - namely 40% of women taking regular medication vs. 60% of women without medication vs. 85% of men without regular medication vs. 15% with regular medication (p=0.019). The differences in parameters across categories are summarized in Table No. 2. Conclusion Except for the total number of men and women screened, we do not see a significant difference in indication, screening, diagnosis and eligibility proposal between genders.