Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Research letter
Cardiovascular screening practices in US National Governing Bodies and National Paralympic Committees
  1. Brett G Toresdahl1,
  2. Cindy Chang2,
  3. Jamie Confino3,
  4. Irfan M Asif4
  1. 1 Primary Care Sports Medicine, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City, New York, USA
  2. 2 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Family & Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
  3. 3 Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Yeshiva University, Bronx, New York, USA
  4. 4 Department of Family Medicine, Greenville Health System, Greenville, South Carolina, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Brett G Toresdahl, Primary Care Sports Medicine Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, 10021, USA; toresdahlb{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Cardiovascular screening in athletes has been a source of controversy within the sports medicine community. Annual screening inclusive of ECG is currently required by all major professional sports leagues in the USA and recommended by the IOC.1 In 2016, the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) published a statement on cardiovascular screening, recognising knowledge gaps and advocating for medical providers caring for competitive athletes to consider important factors when determining an individualised cardiovascular screening strategy. These include the risk of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) in the specific athlete population, the available resources and cardiology infrastructure for screening and secondary evaluations.2

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the cardiovascular screening practices of the US National Governing Bodies (NGBs) and National Paralympic Committees (NPCs). This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board from the …

View Full Text


  • Contributors BGT: concept, design, acquisition, analysis, interpretation, drafting, revising, final approval. CC: design, interpretation, revising, final approval. JC: acquisition, analysis. IMA: design, interpretation, revising, final approval.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval Hospital for Special Surgery.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.