Lampert, Rachel

Abstract Exercise training improves cardiovascular health and reduces the risk for future cardiovascular events and mortality. However, emerging evidence suggests that Masters athletes may have a higher prevalence of cardiovascular abnormalities, such as atrial arrhythmias, coronary atherosclerosis, aortic dilatation, and myocardial fibrosis, compared to their less active peers. The clinical management of Masters athletes may be challenging as available guidelines for such conditions are generally based on data derived from symptomatic sedentary patients, limiting their applicability to highly trained individuals. Other unique challenges in the clinical assessment of Masters athletes include differences in symptomatic presentations compared to sedentary individuals, potential resistance to the initiation of pharmacologic treatment, and the increasing availability of consumer wearable health data that may provide relevant information on their cardiovascular health status. The purpose of this joint EAPC/ESC and ACC Clinical Consensus Statement is to provide an in-depth update on the current state of knowledge on abnormal cardiovascular findings in Masters athletes. We present an expert-based approach on the diagnostic assessment, management, and prognosis of (i) atrial fibrillation, (ii) bradyarrhythmias, (iii) ventricular arrhythmias, (iv) coronary atherosclerosis, (v) aortic dilatation, (vi) myocardial fibrosis, and (vii) exercise-induced arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy. Clinical challenges, areas of ongoing controversy, and uncertainty and the potential underlying mechanisms are discussed. We also present future perspectives and research directives to further refine current best practice strategies. This includes the need for clinical outcome studies, dedicated randomized controlled trials in athletes, and international registries with diverse populations and longitudinal follow-up to evaluate the natural history of cardiac abnormalities and facilitate development of evidence-based approaches in the clinical management of Masters athletes with cardiovascular abnormalities.

There is a growing appreciation for differences in epidemiology, treatment, and outcomes of cardiovascular conditions by sex. Historically, cardiovascular clinical trials have under-represented females, but findings have nonetheless been applied to clinical care in a sex-agnostic manner. Thus, much of the collective knowledge about sex-specific cardiovascular outcomes result from post hoc and secondary analyses. In some cases, these investigations have revealed important sex-based differences with implications for optimizing care for female patients with arrhythmias. This review explores the available evidence related to cardiac arrhythmia care among females, with emphasis on areas in which important sex differences are known or suggested. Considerations related to improving female enrollment in clinical trials as a way to establish more robust clinical evidence for the treatment of females are discussed. Areas of remaining evidence gaps are provided, and recommendations for areas of future research and specific action items are suggested. The overarching goal is to improve appreciation for sex-based differences in cardiac arrhythmia care as 1 component of a comprehensive plan to optimize arrhythmia care for all patients.

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.