{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.046, 'fraction_numerical': 0.026, 'mean_word_length': 5.0820668693009114, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Exercise cardiac magnetic resonance to differentiate athlete’s heart from structural heart disease

Aims
The distinction between left ventricular (LV) dilation with mildly reduced LV ejection fraction (EF) in response to regular endurance exercise training and an early cardiomyopathy is a frequently encountered and difficult clinical conundrum. We hypothesized that exercise rather than resting measures would provide better discrimination between physiological and pathological LV remodelling and that preserved exercise capacity does not exclude significant LV damage.


Methods and results
We prospectively included 19 subjects with LVEF between 40 and 52%, comprising 10 ostensibly healthy endurance athletes (EA-healthy) and nine patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). In addition, we recruited five EAs with a region of subepicardial LV. Receiver operating characteristic fibrosis (EA-fibrosis). Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging was performed at rest and during supine bicycle exercise. Invasive afterload measures were obtained to enable calculations of biventricular function relative to load (an estimate of contractility). In DCM and EA-fibrosis subjects there was diminished augmentation of LVEF (5 ± 6% vs. 4 ± 3% vs. 14 ± 3%; P = 0.001) and contractility [LV end-systolic pressure-volume ratio, LVESPVR; 1.4 (1.3-1.6) vs. 1.5 (1.3-1.6) vs. 1.8 (1.7-2.7); P < 0.001] during exercise relative to EA-healthy. Receiver-operator characteristic curves demonstrated that a cut-off value of 11.2% for ΔLVEF differentiated DCM and EA-fibrosis patients from EA-healthy [area under the curve (AUC) = 0.92, P < 0.001], whereas resting LVEF and VO2max were not predictive. The AUC value for LVESPVR ratio was similar to that of ΔLVEF.


Conclusions
Functional cardiac evaluation during exercise is a promising tool in differentiating healthy athletes with borderline LVEF from those with an underlying cardiomyopathy. Excellent exercise capacity does not exclude significant LV damage.