Return-to-play decisions: are they the team physician's responsibility?

OBJECTIVE: Return-to-play (RTP) decisions are a central component of the Team Physician's clinical work, yet there is little more than anecdotal reference to these in the literature. We recently published a 3-step model for return-to-play medical decision making and, in the current paper, undertook a systematic review of the literature to determine the level of evidence in support of this model. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Web of Science, and CINAHL electronic databases. Any article specifically related to concussion, head injuries, neck injuries, illness, medical conditions (including cardiovascular and renal), and preparticipation in sport or that reported RTP as a clinical outcome was excluded. Any article that contained a discussion on one of the components of the 3-step decision-based RTP model was included. RESULTS: We reviewed 148 articles that met the criteria for inclusion and found 98 review articles, 39 original articles, 6 case reports, and 5 editorials. Of these, 141 articles mentioned Step 1 of the medical decision-making process for RTP (Medical Factors), 26 mentioned Step 2 (Sport Risk Modifiers), and 20 mentioned Step 3 (Decision Modifiers). Of the 148 articles in total, only 13 focused on RTP as the main subject and the remaining 135 mentioned RTP anecdotally. Of these 13 articles, 5 were reviews, 4 were editorials, and 4 were original research. CONCLUSIONS: Although 148 articles we retrieved mention RTP in relation to a specific injury, medical condition, or specific topic, only 13 articles focused specifically on the RTP decision-making process, and 6 of 13 were restricted to Step 1 of the 3-step model (Medical Factors). Return-to-play is a fertile field for research and thought leadership beginning with a focus on the Team Physician's appropriate role in RTP decision making, particularly considering the factors identified in Step 3 (Decision Modification).

Recommendations for physical activity and recreational sports participation for young patients with genetic cardiovascular diseases.

A group of relatively uncommon but important genetic cardiovascular diseases (GCVDs) are associated with increased risk for sudden cardiac death during exercise, including hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, long-QT syndrome, Marfan syndrome, and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. These conditions, characterized by diverse phenotypic expression and genetic substrates, account for a substantial proportion of unexpected and usually arrhythmia-based fatal events during adolescence and young adulthood. Guidelines are in place governing eligibility and disqualification criteria for competitive athletes with these GCVDs (eg, Bethesda Conference No. 26 and its update as Bethesda Conference No. 36 in 2005). However, similar systematic recommendations for the much larger population of patients with GCVD who are not trained athletes, but nevertheless wish to participate in any of a variety of recreational physical activities and sports, have not been available. The practicing clinician is frequently confronted with the dilemma of designing noncompetitive exercise programs for athletes with GCVD after disqualification from competition, as well as for those patients with such conditions who do not aspire to organized sports. Indeed, many asymptomatic (or mildly symptomatic) patients with GCVD desire a physically active lifestyle with participation in recreational and leisure-time activities to take advantage of the many documented benefits of exercise. However, to date, no reference document has been available for ascertaining which types of physical activity could be regarded as either prudent or inadvisable in these subgroups of patients. Therefore, given this clear and present need, this American Heart Association consensus document was constituted, based largely on the experience and insights of the expert panel, to offer recommendations governing recreational exercise for patients with known GCVDs.

When Is Disqualification From Sports Justified?

In brief An important medicolegal issue is how best to resolve disputes about an athlete's medical eligibility. Team physicians typically recommend against athletic participation when they feel that it will pose an unreasonable risk of injury to an athlete who has an abnormality. But such athletes may cite federal laws designed to protect the disabled and claim a right to participate. The legal framework for resolving sports-participation disputes involving physically impaired athletes is still developing. Recent case law reflects a split decision regarding the legality of excluding athletes whose condition, in the opinion of the team physician, exposes them to an increased risk of significant harm.