Pediatric Cardiology

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 428–433 | Cite as

Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death of the Young Athlete: The Controversy About the Screening Electrocardiogram and Its Innovative Artificial Intelligence Solution

  • Anthony C. ChangEmail author
Review Article


The preparticipation screening for athlete participation in sports typically entails a comprehensive medical and family history and a complete physical examination. A 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) can increase the likelihood of detecting cardiac diagnoses such as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, but this diagnostic test as part of the screening process has engendered considerable controversy. The pro position is supported by argument that international screening protocols support its use, positive diagnosis has multiple benefits, history and physical examination are inadequate, primary prevention is essential, and the cost effectiveness is justified. Although the aforementioned myriad of justifications for routine ECG screening of young athletes can be persuasive, several valid contentions oppose supporting such a policy, namely, that the sudden death incidence is very (too) low, the ECG screening will be too costly, the false-positive rate is too high, resources will be allocated away from other diseases, and manpower is insufficient for its execution. Clinicians, including pediatric cardiologists, have an understandable proclivity for avoiding this prodigious national endeavor. The controversy, however, should not be focused on whether an inexpensive, noninvasive test such as an ECG should be mandated but should instead be directed at just how these tests for young athletes can be performed in the clinical imbroglio of these disease states (with variable genetic penetrance and phenotypic expression) with concomitant fiscal accountability and logistical expediency in this era of economic restraint. This monumental endeavor in any city or region requires two crucial elements well known to business scholars: implementation and execution. The eventual solution for the screening ECG dilemma requires a truly innovative and systematic approach that will liberate us from inadequate conventional solutions. Artificial intelligence, specifically the process termed “machine learning” and “neural networking,” involves complex algorithms that allow computers to improve the decision-making process based on repeated input of empirical data (e.g., databases and ECGs). These elements all can be improved with a national database, evidence-based medicine, and in the near future, innovation that entails a Kurzweilian artificial intelligence infrastructure with machine learning and neural networking that will construct the ultimate clinical decision-making algorithm.


Screening 12-lead electrocardiogram Sudden cardiac death Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy 


  1. 1.
    Alpaydin E (2010) Introduction to machine learning, 2nd edn. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bellazzi R, Abu-Hanna A (2007) Artificial intelligence in medicine. Springer, The Netherlands. In: Presented at the 11th Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine in Europe, 2007Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berger S, Dhala A, Friedberg DZ (1999) Sudden cardiac death in infants, children, and adolescents. Pediatr Clin North Am 46:221–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bosl W et al (2011) EEG complexity as a biomarker for autism spectrum disorder risk. BMC Med 9:18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bossidy L, Charan R, Burck C (2002) Execution: the discipline of getting things done. Crown Business, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chaitman BR (2007) An electrocardiogram should not be included in routine preparticipation screening of young athletes. Circulation 116:2610–2615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Corrado D, Basso C, Schiavon M et al (1998) Screening for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in young athletes. New Engl J Med 339:364–369PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Corrado D, Pelliccia A, Bjornstad HH et al (2005) Cardiovascular pre-participation screening of young competitive athletes for prevention of sudden death: proposal for a common European protocol. Consensus Statement of the Study Group of Sport Cardiology of the Working Group of Cardiac Rehabilitation and Exercise Physiology and the Working Group of Myocardial and Pericardial Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 26:516–524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Corrado et al (2006) Trends in sudden cardiovascular death in young competitive athletes after implementation of a preparticipation screening program. JAMA 296:1593–1601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Data from the National Center for Education Statistics 2009. Accessed 2009Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fuller CM, McNulty CM, Spring DA et al (1997) Prospective screening of 5,615 high school athletes for risk of sudden cardiac death. Med Sci Sports Exerc 29:1131–1138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    International Olympic Committee Medical Commission.
  13. 13.
    Kotter JP (1996) Leading change. Harvard Business School Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kurzweil R (2005) The Singularity is near. The Penquin Group, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marcus FI, Nava A, Thiene G et al (2007) Arrhythmogenic RV cardiomyopathy/dysplasia: recent advances. Springer, MilanCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maron BJ (2003) Sudden death in young athletes. New Engl J Med 349:1064–1079PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maron BJ (2004) Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in childhood. Pediatr Clin North Am 51:1305–1346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maron BJ, Roberts WC, Epstein SE (1982) Sudden death in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a profile of 78 patients. Circulation 65:1388–1394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maron BJ, Thompson PD, Ackerman MJ et al (2007) Recommendations and considerations related to preparticipation screening for cardiovascular abnormalities in competitive athletes: 2007 Update. A Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism, Endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Circulation 115:1643–1655PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Myerburg RJ, Vetter VL et al (2007) Electrocardiogram should be included in preparticipation screening of athletes. Circulation 116:2616–2626PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Szolovits P, Patil RS, Schwartz WB et al (1988) Artificial intelligence in medical diagnosis. Ann Intern Med 108:80–87PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tasaki H, Hamasaki Y, Ichimaru T et al (1987) Mass screening for heart disease of school children in Saga City: 7-year follow-up study. Jpn Circ J 51:1415–1420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wheeler MT et al (2010) Cost-effectiveness of preparticipation screening for prevention of sudden cardiac death in young athletes. Ann Intern Med 152:276–286PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Heart InstituteChildren’s Hospital of Orange CountyOrangeUSA

Personalised recommendations