Introduction:

The interpretation of the athlete’s electrocardiogram is often complicated by the changes produced by prolonged training.

Objective:

To compare the application of Seattle criteria for electrocardiographic assessment in a group of cardiologists against a professional specialized in electrocardiography of the athlete under the same criteria.

Material and methods:

On a prospective database of recreational athletes who attended between June 2017 and January 2018 to perform physical fitness, 499 electrocardiograms were included for the analysis. Seven cardiologists from the Sports Institute (IW) rated the electrocardiograms as “normal”; “Normal alterations” or “dubious or abnormal alterations” knowing the patient’s background as well as the studies performed. A cardiologist from the Boca Juniors medical team specialized in sportsman’s electrocardiography (RF) assessed the 499 electrocardiograms blindly (without knowing the demographic data of the patients or the pathological background) using the same criteria.

Results:

Out of a total of 499 electrocardiograms, 448 (89%) were interpreted as normal by the sports electrocardiography specialist vs 459 (91%) by the cardiologists of the sports institute. Regarding normal alterations, 21 (4%) electrocardiograms were considered normal alterations for the electrocardiography specialist vs 23 (4%) by the sports institute. 30 (6%) electrocardiograms showed doubtful or abnormal alterations for the specialist vs 17 (3%) for the sports institute.

Conclusions:

The electrocardiographic interpretation can present variations from one center to another despite using standardized criteria. It is likely that the clinical evaluation.

        · abstract in Spanish     · text in Spanish     · Spanish ( pdf )