POSTER SESSION 3

98+15mm/m2, 42+7mm/m2.7] than both RT [187+31g; 78+15mm/m2 and 36+6 mm/m2.7] and CT [165+32g; 74+11 mm/m2 and 33+6 mm/m2.7] (p,0.05). The predominant LV geometry in the ET was normal (65%) and eccentric hypertrophy (30%). There was no significant difference in LV mass between the RT and CT groups. Apart from a higher stroke volume in ET, compared to RT and CT, there were no significant group differences in global function during systole or diastole. Whilst regional TDI data were not different between groups, longitudinal, basal circumferential and mid radial strain was reduced in RT compared to ET. Conclusion: In this comprehensive, technical evaluation of the athlete’s heart, a larger LV was present in ET even after appropriate body size scaling. Evidence for hypertrophy was lacking in RT. Differences in body size and discrimination of AH from disease pathology can be enhanced by appropriate scaling of data. Further work should evaluate cardiac strain and strain rate in RT athletes. Cardiovascular Research Supplements (2014) 103, S102–S141