Echocardiography Differences Between Athlete’s Heart Hearth and Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

Introduction: Among long term athletes there is always present hypertrophy of the left ventricle walls as well as increased cardiac mass. These changes are the result of the heart muscle adaptation to load during the years of training, which should not be considered as pathology. In people suffering from hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), there is also present hypertrophy of the left ventricle walls and increased mass of the heart, but these changes are the result of pathological changes in the heart caused by a genetic predisposition for the development HCM of. Differences between myocardial hypertrophy in athletes and HCM are not clearly differentiated and there are always dilemmas between pathological and physiological hypertrophy. The goal of the study is to determine and compare the echocardiographic cardiac parameters of longtime athletes to patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Material and methods: The study included 60 subjects divided into two groups: active athletes and people with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Results: Mean values of IVSd recorded in GB is IVSd=17.5 mm (n=20, 95% CI, 16.00–19.00 mm), while a significantly smaller mean value is recorded in GA, IVSd=10.0 mm (n=40, 95% CI, 9.00-11.00 mm). The mean value of the left ventricle in diastole (LVDd) recorded in the GA is LVDd=51 mm (n=40; 95% CI, 48.00 to 52.00 mm), while in the group with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (GB) mean LVDd value is 42 mm (n=20; 95% CI, 40.00 to 48.00 mm). The mean value of the rear wall of the left ventricle (LVPWd) recorded in the GA is LVDd=10 mm (n=40; 95% CI, 9.00-10.00 mm) while in the group with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (GB) mean LVDd is 14 mm (n=20; 95% CI, 12.00 to 16.00 mm). The mean of the left ventricle during systole (LVSD) observed in GA is LVSD=34 mm (n=40; 95% CI, 32.00 to 36.00 mm), while in the group with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (GB) mean LVSD is 28 mm (n=20; 95% CI, 24.00 to 28.83 mm). The mean ejection fraction (EF%) observed in GA is EF=60% (n=40; 95% CI, 56.41 to 63.00%), while in the group with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (GB) mean EF value is 69% (n=20; 95% CI, 62.00 to 70.83 mm). Somewhat higher mean diastolic left ventricular function (E/A) was observed in GA, E/A=1.76±0.15, and lower average values in the group with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: (GB) E/A=0.78±0.02. Conclusion: Mean values of parameters intraventricular septum thickness in diastole (IVSd), the thickness of the rear wall of the left ventricle (LVPWd), the diameter of the left ventricle during systole (LVSD) were statistically different between groups of athletes (GA) compared to the group of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (GB).