Since we’re off topic on cardio now - I spend a good deal of my awake life working with a protein family called ankyrins (specifically in the context of neurological disorders).
One member of this family, ankyrin B (encoded by ANK2) is a key player in a number of sudden cardiac insults and because it also leads to a number of other (metabolic) deficiencies also in humans, the associated syndrome is now called “ankyrin B syndrome”. The ANK2 mutation leads to the disruption of sodium pump organization in cell membranes, and equally affects organization of sodium/calcium exchangers and other vital pumps and transporters. Further, ankB mutation leads to altered calcium ion signaling in adult cardiomyocytes that can result in extrasystoles, among other detrimental outcomes. So in a nutshell - mutations in this protein are a key factor explaining the mechanisms for cardiac arrhythmia due to abnormal coordination of multiple functionally related ion channels and transporters.
Patients carrying different mutations have been identified and show varying degrees of metabolic issues as well as cardiac dysfunction, including bradycardia, sinus arrhythmia, idiopathic ventricular fibrillation, catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia, and risk of sudden death. In fact, originally, ankB was associated with longQT, but due to its slightly different clinical picture, has been given its own syndrome designation recently. It’s the classic “sudden death” mutation that we see in young athletes that drop dead on the field, or … horses?? That’s the big question now, isn’t it. It would be fairly easy to “test”. Maybe I should write a grant … 
Remember that horse whose heart condition was detected because they checked the left side to hear the heart? Should this be the new standard?
It never fails to amaze me how much I learn reading this forum. Thanks for hosting, CotH!
Now for all of you researchers a query on long QT/ ank B: are these mutations inherited? If so and not just spot mutations, I doubt they’d survive in the horse for very long because of the nature of the beast (sudden high speed/physical stress movement is natural to them). They would self-select out. Unless of course our care of them helps them survive longer to now express the effects of the mutation.
I’d say there’s an interesting research opportunity in this!
[QUOTE=Jealoushe;8182455]
Remember that horse whose heart condition was detected because they checked the left side to hear the heart? Should this be the new standard?[/QUOTE]
Pretty much all of my cardiology knowledge comes from the human side of things but a lot of it probably applies to horses as well. Listening to the heart tones will help detect certain types of cardiac problems, such as valvular issues or certain arrhythmias such as atrial fibrillation (assuming it is present at the time the horse’s heart is being listened to, because sometimes arrhythmias can come and go). However, not all potentially lethal cardiac problems can be detected by listening to the heart, and in fact many of the things that cause sudden cardiac death in a seemingly healthy person (or horse) such as long QT syndrome, Brugada, or arrythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia may not have a murmur or noticeably irregular rhythm that can be heard.
That said, listening to a horse’s heart tones is quick, easy, and totally noninvasive, so while I don’t think there is enough information yet to make guidelines or recommendations, it certainly can’t hurt, and in some cases might do some good.
So… quick question. Are these heart conditions genetic? I am wondering if we can track the occurrence and relate to certain bloodlines. I doubt we can do this with any reliability, due to the small percentage of occurrence. But…
[QUOTE=Winding Down;8183046]
So… quick question. Are these heart conditions genetic? I am wondering if we can track the occurrence and relate to certain bloodlines. I doubt we can do this with any reliability, due to the small percentage of occurrence. But…[/QUOTE]
I know that in humans there can be a genetic link with LQTS and Brugada. I don’t know specifically with horses, but it is certainly a possibility that would seem to be worth looking into. As far as frugalannie’s question about any inherited defects being selected out of the population … I don’t know if that would happen as much as you might expect, because in affected individuals sudden cardiac death can occur at any age (or may not occur at all) so it’s entirely possible for the horse to have reached reproductive maturity and passed on its genetics before there is any indication that it had a cardiac issue. I don’t know specific examples off the top of my head, but I’m sure we’ve all heard of well known breeding stallions that have died of a “heart attack” at a relatively early age.
Equine sudden cardiac death is definitely an area where I would like to see more research done. I did find an article at http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/vet/news-events/news/archive/2014/sudden-equine-death from the UK that said that it seems to be more common in National Hunt horses than flat racers … It seems likely, then, that it would also tend to be more common in upper level event horses because there is some similarity in what the horses are being asked to do.
IIRC, Nasrullah, Never Bend and Mill Reef are examples, but I could well be wrong.
Nasrullah died at about 18, as did his son, Never Bend and Never Bend’s son, Mill Reef.
also, could supplements be linked? Feed? Conditioning? Change in speeds on course?
I hope that every time there is a sudden cardiac event in competition that causes horse death and the necropsy does not show an aneuryism, DNA is preserved. Seems to me that sooner or later enough will have been saved that gene sequencing can be done to look for genetic links.
[QUOTE=omare;8178217]
“It would never happen, because many top riders, and some on this forum feel their ego is compromised if the sport is not extreme.”
Ok so do you have any proof that many top UL riders are all about extreme sports here? it seems to me the majority of top UL riders are professionals–they are not yahoo cowboys–they are methodical and I suspect dont sleep that well the night before a tough course. it is not base jumping or skiing backcountry type of sport.
It seems to me wanting a challenge–because you think you are the best prepared/talented to meet that challenge–and you want to be rewarded for that preparation and skill and talent -does not mean one wants to court death and serious injury for horse and rider. (It is not inherently required or integral to the sport----unlike base jumping.)[/QUOTE]
The proof is in most what is posted and talked about here. Time and time again when we have talks about horse injury and death, rider injury and death the phrase “it is an extreme sport” keeps appearing. “It is a high risk sport” is stated in some way shape or form. When comments are made about reducing heights, changing fences, slowing speeds they can be at times met with derision and scorn for attempting to “change the sport” or “dumb the sport down”.
Winding Down thinks I am insulting people, I am not nor am I making any personal attacks for I’d have to say so and so is something. I am mainly reflecting what has been said on this forum and shown to be at the very top of this sport. Enter at your own risk.
Even as I read your response I see references to “you”, you want to be rewarded, you want to meet that challenge and while I can absolutely agree with the concept, I do not forget that it is not just me out there, it is also my horse and when I factor his life into the equation, I’d want to think about the risk. Yahoo cowboys, no way do I see that. I see them as professionals that are either pushed to accept the extremes of this sport or choose it for what ever reason, but you cannot say that this sport, at the top level, does not place death and major injury closer to the forefront. In that regard it is akin to your two examples. many people compete well at less risky levels and still have the same sense of accomplishment, or overcoming a challenge without the need to push it right to the edge.
JP60–that continues to come up because it is true and a fact. This is a dangerous and an extreme sport. It is why it is NOT for everyone or every horse. In legal terms…we have a concept of assumption of risk. Life is full of risks we all choose to take. And we need to take them fully informed of the risks. Yes…things should continue to be done to make things safer…but as riders we also have to acknowledge the risks we are taking. The risks are what gets had adrenaline pumping. That isn’t for everyone. And as riders we must take the responsibility to educate ourselves and understand what risks we are taking.
We can strive to make things safer…but there will be risks and as most things…a higher level of risk at the elite levels. For some…they will not want to take the risk at any level. There are people that will think you are wrong to run at novice…other who think it is wrong to risk jumping at all…and others who think you are cruel to ride your horse, use a bit, put shoes on your horse or [fill in the blank]. We make similar choices for our horses…some will not risk turning their riding house out, out with other horses…some will never jump or ride out of a ring. Just different choices. That is life.
[QUOTE=JP60;8184306]
It would never happen, because many top riders, and some on this forum feel their ego is compromised if the sport is not extreme…
The proof is in most what is posted and talked about here. Time and time again when we have talks about horse injury and death, rider injury and death the phrase “it is an extreme sport” keeps appearing. “It is a high risk sport” is stated in some way shape or form. When comments are made about reducing heights, changing fences, slowing speeds they can be at times met with derision and scorn for attempting to “change the sport” or “dumb the sport down”.
Winding Down thinks I am insulting people, I am not nor am I making any personal attacks for I’d have to say so and so is something. I am mainly reflecting what has been said on this forum and shown to be at the very top of this sport. Enter at your own risk.
Even as I read your response I see references to “you”, you want to be rewarded, you want to meet that challenge and while I can absolutely agree with the concept, I do not forget that it is not just me out there, it is also my horse and when I factor his life into the equation, I’d want to think about the risk. Yahoo cowboys, no way do I see that. I see them as professionals that are either pushed to accept the extremes of this sport or choose it for what ever reason, but you cannot say that this sport, at the top level, does not place death and major injury closer to the forefront. In that regard it is akin to your two examples. many people compete well at less risky levels and still have the same sense of accomplishment, or overcoming a challenge without the need to push it right to the edge.[/QUOTE]
JP60, when you make statements about how people “feel” and note that their “egos are compromised if the sport is not extreme,” I read that as not only an insult, but as an assault on character, about which you know nothing. How can anyone make statements about others’ “feelings” or for cripes sake, their “egos” with no first hand, in depth, one-on-one conversation with those “people?” I truly doubt that you have served as an analysand to Buck or Phillip or Boyd or any of the persons about whom you make such broad sweeping generalizations.
And along the same lines, your statement above:
they can be at times met with derision and scorn for at tempting to “change the sport” or “dumb the sport down”.
is another example of attacking others by assuming that those who disagree with you, or question your statements are derisive and scornful.
Really???
I greatly appreciate questioning programs or behaviors, and especially if the questioning is accompanied by thoughtful hypotheses. That is constructive. And I wholeheartedly agree that as you move up the levels, the risk of injury or death to horse and rider increases. And this is a critical concern that we all share.There are many ways to improve safety - and we are actively working on these ways now. I think I can speak for most of us in saying that I do not wish for the ULs to become a combined test. We need to retain and hone the challenging aspect of xc while at the same time improve safety.
All of us share the same concern and mission: Safety to horses and riders is paramount. There are measures being implemented, developed, and researched to improve safety. Everyone is on board but we need a bigger engine and more paddles.
[QUOTE=Winding Down;8178261]
Thank you omare. The quote you note at the outset is very much the sort of comment that I find so very offensive. I would guess that whoever wrote it has very little personal contact with those she insults.
Assaults on character of persons you do not know… grrrr…[/QUOTE]
Here is one example
There are others. If you would stop seeing red for a moment you might see someone who’s primary concern is about the horse. Because of that creature is how we do what we do in Eventing. In my comments I have time and time again tried to remain consistent to that main point. If we do not place the horses welfare first then this sport has no meaning or soul.
With that, it should not matter where we draw the line to test the limits. There is currently a line and enough teams have crossed it, to the negative, that it becomes a recurring topic of conversation. At what point are we looking at our human ego more than the horse? Sure, it will do whatever we ask and we applaud the heroic effort, the herculean ability to overcome extreme odds, but do we want to keep gambling our horses lives that way?
Something I’ve also said time and time is that any human can choose to do some extreme activity or another, base jumping, rock climbing, deep sea diving, but those endeavours only place the individual at risk. Only in Eventing do we bring along a partner that has no say at the start, and can be punished for refusing if their own sense of self preservation finally overcomes their desire to perform their task.
How much is too much?
When I talk about ego at the top of this sport it is not used as a form of insult, but observation. Everyone of us, you me, them all have an ego and if some professional was told that while in the past they were allowed to jump some max height and width, but now that is going to be reduced for concern of the horse, the human will have a reaction. Their ego, id, whatever will possibly say “you are making less of the sport and that reflects on me”.
Time and time in sport after sport where the line of extreme was passed and changes made the top challenged the change. “It was good enough for me, why change it”. “It’s a risky sport, you accept it going in, why change it”. NASCAR slowed cars down and put up safe walls and people’s ego cried out. Volvo Ocean Race put limits on where to sail and changed the boats for safety and people’s ego cried out “foul, it is not the same”. F1 made radical changes after too many deaths and some people thought the sport ruined.
The thing is Winding Down, those who made the decisions to step the line back, to consider not the small percent who survived, but the greater percent who still want to try; those people put others before their own sense of self.
In the last year there have been a number of threads started here specifically on the extremes of this sport with many asking for change or saying they’d walk away. Threads span years looking at and asking for change so that this sport that everyone here loves can not only remain an active sport, but grow. Has the sport gotten safer for the horse? I am hard pressed to say yes even though it has gotten safer for the rider. I cannot make a change, maybe you can, but when I look up in this sport, it is those at the top, Riders, Trainers, Owners, and Officials that can make a change and since nothing has really happened, it is hard to not think that ego at the top of this sport is holding back change.
After all that you think that I am insulting some individual then you started with contempt in reading my posts and have never thought different. I am sorry for that for many times I have respected your views both in the acceptance or disagreement.
I love my horse
I love this sport
By extension I love all those horses active in eventing
I would like to see both horse and sport survive, even if it meant taking a step back from the line.
is that wrong to think?
JP60, with all due respect, I am not “seeing red” or angry in any way. Why should I have any reason to be angry? Perhaps you were referring to me as being derisive or scornful but if you were, I do not take that personally. I attribute such statements more to the source than to the object, given that this is an internet forum. 
Also, I do not have contempt for you nor did I start out reading your posts with contempt, as you note may have been the case at the outset. Indeed, it seems as though you are stating that if I see your posts as insulting (what I mean by that is attacking the source and not the behavior), then I have contempt. Nope, you are wrong. I have no idea who you are or what your motives might be. I am curious about many of your statements, however, and sometimes I do not agree…
I do not believe that I have made any comments about your thoughts, motives, or emotions. If I have, I apologize as that is inappropriate and unwarranted.
Most everyone I know loves their horse(s); they tell me so.
They all, to my knowledge, love this sport; they tell me so.
No one has told me that they love all horses active in eventing. Some say that they love all horses.
Everyone I know wants to see both horse and sport survive.
I do not know how you define “stepping back from the line.” That is vague and not descriptive. Actually, “love” is pretty darned vague as well, but that is another chapter, thread, or poem, all together. :winkgrin:
Everyone wants safety. We may disagree on what that means and how much of the sport we are willing to change or abolish. But that is no reason to assume that there is anger, contempt, scorn, derisiveness or whatever else…
nuff said…
Back to the cardiac thing, didn’t Deltawave tell us that horses don’t have “heart attacks” like humans? What is generally called a heart attack in horses is actually large vessel failure and not the same sort of event that humans have? In that case, would a genetic link be possible? Is it actually a heart issue in that regard?
Was the horse that was pulled, pulled because of an irregular heartbeat or murmur?
Again I dont see any language coming from professionals that indicate they are extreme sport junkies. Riding is inherently dangerous-- but it is not the same as bungie jumping–that is an extreme sport. bungie jumping is done for the sole purpose of the rush. Eventing has too many tedious hours to qualify for that same instanteous reward.
As for suggesting pros are egotistical adrenline junkies putting horses at risk-- – as a practical matter-- - the pros are not getting around w/o a horse and I cant imagine too many pros think a good horse is easy or cheap to replace-- so no --i dont think they are purposefully putting horses at risk because they are egotistcal adrenaline junkies edited to add–the UL rider has to alsonot be broken up to make moneyand stay in business.) Do they want to be on the Team–yes–but I dont think one is the same as the other. Ego–does not equal --idiot or adrenline junkie. . And I cant imagine riding in that sport without some type of resilient ego -if things can go wrong they do with horses. I also dont think folks that consistently “break” horses on xcountry courses–in plain view-- will continue with sponsors. Again the market does not tend to tolerate idiots. Interestingly one study did show that mutil sports riders tended to get more falls-perhaps they are the adrenalline unkies–but I cant see where the pros have time for the luxury of another sport so that woudl seem to be addressing ammies.
Meanwhile- pros get ripped for being soft and not competing in the rain or bad conditions- — if you care about the horse why would you risk them? Talk about impossible - the same group is being characterized as extreme sports junkies while also bashed for being soft wuzzies.
[QUOTE=RacetrackReject;8184499]
Back to the cardiac thing, didn’t Deltawave tell us that horses don’t have “heart attacks” like humans? What is generally called a heart attack in horses is actually large vessel failure and not the same sort of event that humans have? In that case, would a genetic link be possible? Is it actually a heart issue in that regard?
Was the horse that was pulled, pulled because of an irregular heartbeat or murmur?[/QUOTE]
The British and Australian study linked to above seems to have identified something called “Sudden Death Syndrome” in horses. Now what that actually means isn’t clear. All I’m suggesting is that when such a thing occurs in competition and the required necropsy is done, if the death is not from aneurysm or lung bleeding, DNA also be saved until there are enough samples to do a valid gene search on. If the problem is some sort of heart rhythm issue, that’s not quite the same thing as a “normal” human heart attack.
From the study which used data from GB, Australia, Japan and Hong Kong racing:
The study has shown that the cause of death can be quite variable, ranging from severe lung bleeding to a pelvic fracture that causes massive bleeding into the abdomen. But in approximately half the cases I studied, the pathologist was uncertain as to the cause of death. The most likely explanation for death in these situations is cardiac rhythm irregularities, but this is very difficult to prove.
At any rate, it’s still something to think about until it’s disproved.
[QUOTE=omare;8184598]
Again I dont see any language coming from professionals that indicate they are extreme sport junkies. Riding is inherently dangerous-- but it is not the same as bungie jumping–that is an extreme sport. bungie jumping is done for the sole purpose of the rush. Eventing has too many tedious hours to qualify for that same instanteous reward.
.[/QUOTE]
I agree and disagree. I do not think of bungie jumping as sport. I think of extreme sports to be many of the down hill snow sports, jumping off a ski jump for example. Now you have the X games. To be good at ANY of those sports takes YEARS of dedication and work. But yes, there is a thrill and rush doing them. The VAST majority of the public will not put in the work it takes to do those sports and will instead get their rush on a good rollercoaster.
I also agree with you and don’t think UL riders are cowboys risking their horses willy-nilly. It takes years of hard work to develop those horses, their livelihood is based on success of that partnership and keeping both the horse and themselves healthy. They want better safety…and many are pushing for that as hard if not harder. They have worked to have courses improved…and in the end…I’ve known many who will pull up and not run their horse if they thought the risk was too great either for themselves or their horse.
Once again, I think it all comes down to WHAT YOU WANT THE SPORT TO TEST.
Obviously, it’s evolved greatly since the military days; the type of horse, the type of rider, the degree of risk riders, owners, and organizers are willing to assume.
In that context, then, WHAT IS THE QUESTION?
Endurance?
Cattiness?
Scope?
Ridability?
Fitness?
Versatility?
Emphasis on rider skill?
Emphasis on quality of horse?
Nowhere do I see “Optical Illusions” or “Willingness to Attempt the Insane” as high priorities in that list above. The days when the war horse must be willing to unhesitatingly fling himself off a drawbridge for a rider on a suicide mission are OVER. If we take as true the opinion above, that UL riders, no less than the lower levels, would prefer at all cost to finish in one piece, able to go again another day, then WHY do we need the enormous “broken bridge” type jumps, the hanging logs over ditches, the ramped tables, the keyholes, the wagon jumps and other circus stunts? Can’t we punish a “mistake” with just penalty points instead of grisly and too frequently fatal crashes?
I completely dismiss the “TV” argument; there has never been enough money in Eventing to attract a substantial TV audience, and there never will be. The sport is too elite and arcane for Joe Nascar to want to watch. Plus, there’s the twitchiness of “animal rights” groups who leap to attack anything they see.
So let’s decide what it is we want to test, and get rid of any “question” that does not further THAT mission. But there has to be a frank and open discussion of where the sport realistically is today, as opposed to its historical context.
Been awhile since we fenced with live blades in the Olympics. :winkgrin:
[QUOTE=RacetrackReject;8184499]
Back to the cardiac thing, didn’t Deltawave tell us that horses don’t have “heart attacks” like humans? What is generally called a heart attack in horses is actually large vessel failure and not the same sort of event that humans have? In that case, would a genetic link be possible? Is it actually a heart issue in that regard?
Was the horse that was pulled, pulled because of an irregular heartbeat or murmur?[/QUOTE]
Correct… As a general rule horses don’t have myocardial infarctions due to coronary artery disease, which is what the term “heart attack” usually refers to in humans. Sudden cardiac death in horses has been usually found to be a result of a rupture of a large vessel, or in some cases no structural problems have been found, indicating that the cause was most likely a lethal arrhythmia.
If I remember correctly, the horse in question had a significant heart murmur … I believe it was due to damage to the aorta which ultimately affected a valve, but I could be mistaken.
