Comparison of cardiovascular screening guidelines for middle‐aged/older adults

Purpose Although both European (EACPR) and American (ACSM) Scientific Societies have devised cardiovascular protocols for the assessment of “middle‐aged/older” individuals who are about to participate in sports or physical exercise, there are no data regarding the guidelines' sensitivity of these measures. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of different international screening protocols. Methods This observational cross‐sectional study evaluated 525 subjects (80% males; median age 50 [35‐85] years) seeking medical certification before participating in sports or regular exercise. The screening protocol consisted in completing a personal history profile, a physical examination, a resting ECG, a maximal exercise test, and, when required, additional instrumental evaluations. The effectiveness of the current EACPR as well as the former and new ACSM guidelines was thereby analyzed. Results The full screening protocol uncovered 100 previously undetected cardiovascular conditions (main pathologies detected: 21 coronary artery disease (CAD), 14 arterial hypertension, 38 complex arrhythmias). When the European guideline was used, 49% of these conditions went undetected, including 10 CAD. When the former American guideline was used, 29% (6 CAD) went undetected; when the recently updated edition was used, 50% including 11 CAD went undetected. Conclusion The former ACSM guideline demonstrated a higher diagnostic sensitivity than the newer version and the EACPR guideline. Current screening protocols might be adapted for subjects performing high‐intensity exercise due to their higher risk for cardiovascular and exercise‐associated adverse events. The use of an incremental ECG‐monitored maximal exercise test seems to improve these screening outcomes.