Pelliccia · JAMA 1996 · Prospective cross-sectional comparative study · n=665

Athlete's heart in women. Echocardiographic characterization of highly trained elite female athletes.

Cited 329 times in the scientific literature.

Level 3 - non-randomized controlled study

Prospective controlled observational study comparing athletes to sedentary controls

PubMed 8667565 · doi:10.1001/jama.276.3.211 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

Echocardiographic parameters (2-dimensional, M-mode, and Doppler) were prospectively evaluated in 600 elite Italian female athletes (aged 12 to 49 years, mean 21 years; competing in 27 sports) and 65 sedentary healthy female controls (aged 14 to 41 years, mean 23.7 years) between 1986 and 1993. Left ventricular end-diastolic cavity dimension and maximal wall thickness were measured and compared between groups, as well as against historical data from 738 male athletes.

What was found

Athletes demonstrated larger left ventricular end-diastolic cavity dimension (49 +/- 4 mm vs 46 +/- 3 mm; P < .001; 6% larger) and maximal wall thickness (8.2 +/- 0.9 mm vs 7.2 +/- 0.6 mm; P < .001; 14% larger) than controls. Cavity dimension exceeded normal limits (>54 mm) in 47 athletes (8%) and was within the dilated cardiomyopathy range (>=60 mm) in 4 athletes (1%), predominantly among endurance athletes. Left ventricular wall thickness ranged from 6 mm to 12 mm and did not exceed normal limits in any female athlete. Compared with historical male athletes, female athletes had 11% smaller cavity dimensions and 23% smaller wall thickness (P < .001).

Why it matters

This study shows that physiological remodeling in elite female athletes does not induce wall thickness beyond normal limits, indicating that the diagnostic overlap between athlete's heart and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is primarily restricted to male athletes.

Limits

The study is an observational cross-sectional assessment without longitudinal follow-up or deconditioning protocols. The sedentary control group was relatively small (n = 65) compared with the athlete cohort (n = 600), and male comparisons were derived from previously published historical data rather than concurrent controls.

Cited by