[Place of the exercise stress test at the sportsman]

Is the stress test still part of the useful examinations in the detection of risk heart disease in sports subjects? Should we continue to use it as a surveillance examination in coronary sports patients? Meta-analysis, considering a ST subshift of more than 1mm as a criterion for positivity, underline the low prevalence of abnormal examinations and a significant rate of false-positives. But for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease, it is mainly the evolution of the ST segment to effort or recovery and the occurrence of stress arrhythmias that detect true positivity. When coronary risk is more important (presence of risk factors, resumption of sport, intense and prolonged efforts), it seems lawful to recommend such a review on a regular basis among men over 40 years of age with two risk factors but Also among veterans taking up sport after a period of prolonged inactivity. For the asymptomatic coronary athlete the stress test remains at the centre of the final decision for the resumption of a sport in competition irrespective of the method of revascularization. Of course the stress test, even inevitable, remains flawed in the detection of coronary artery disease in the asymptomatic athlete. However, it provides additional information on the condition of being maximal, and attaching importance to arrhythmias, the tensional profile and the maximum power developed in addition to the ST segment's only study.