Impact of exercise addiction on attitude to preparticipation evaluation and adherence to medical prescription

Does cardiovascular preparticipation screening cause psychological distress in athletes? A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the psychological implications of cardiovascular preparticipation screening (PPS) in athletes.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, APA PsycInfo, Cochrane Library and grey literature sources.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Observational and experimental studies assessing a population of athletes who participated in a cardiovascular PPS protocol, where psychological outcomes before, during and/or after PPS were reported.

METHODS

Results of included studies were synthesised by consolidating similar study-reported measures for key psychological outcomes before, during and/or after screening. Summary measures (medians, ranges) were computed across studies for each psychological outcome.

RESULTS

A total of eight studies were included in this review (median sample size: 479). Study cohorts consisted of high school, collegiate, professional and recreational athletes (medians: 59% male, 20.5 years). Most athletes reported positive reactions to screening and would recommend it to others (range 88%-100%, five studies). Increased psychological distress was mainly reported among athletes detected with pathological cardiac conditions and true-positive screening results. In comparison, athletes with false-positive screening results still reported an increased feeling of safety while participating in sport and were satisfied with PPS. A universal conclusion across all studies was that most athletes did not experience psychological distress before, during or after PPS, regardless of the screening modality used or accuracy of results.

CONCLUSION

Psychological distress associated with PPS in athletes is rare and limited to athletes with true-positive findings. To mitigate downstream consequences in athletes who experience psychological distress, appropriate interventions and resources should be accessible prior to the screening procedure.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021272887.

Decreased Rate of Presentation, but Worsened Racial-Ethnic Disparity in Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding During Coronavirus 2019 Shutdown: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Purpose

In spring 2020, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) "stay-at-home" orders may have led to later, more acute disease presentations of emergent conditions such as gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). In this retrospective cohort study, we compared incidence and severity of GIB during the strictest COVID shutdown to pre-COVID periods.

Patients and methods

We compared weekly counts of emergency department (ED) visits for GIB between March 27 and May 7, 2020 (COVID period) and pre-COVID periods in 2019 and 2020 in a US statewide network of hospitals. We compared the severity of GIB presentations using incident rate ratios (IRR) of "severe" GIB (requiring ≥4 units of blood, endoscopic therapy, interventional radiology or surgical procedure), intensive care (ICU) admission and shock. We also looked for effect modification of demographic covariates on associations between year and GIB outcomes.

Results

Fewer patients presented to ED for GIB during COVID than during the same dates in 2019 (534 versus 904; IRR 0.59, 95% CI 0.53-0.66). A greater proportion of COVID-period ED visits required inpatient admission (73.6% vs 67.8%, p = 0.02) and had severe GIB (19.3% vs 14.9%, p = 0.03). Proportion of patients requiring transfusion (p < 0.001), with shock (p < 0.01), or with critical hemoglobin (p = 0.003) or lactate (p = 0.02) were worse during COVID. Non-white patients experienced disproportionately worse outcomes during COVID than in 2019, with greater absolute counts of shock (65 vs 62, p = 0.01 for interaction) or ICU admission (40 vs 35, p = 0.01 for interaction).

Conclusion

Fewer acute GIB presented during the pandemic period compared to the year prior. The severity of pandemic presentations was greater, driven by disproportionately worse outcomes in minorities.