Fielders Chest protectors?

cnardone said:

When you say time and again, how many studies are you talking about? I've only seen the one by tufts, but I've certainly not done an exhaustive search.

Click to expand...

I just searched for "commotio cordis" and "heart guard" The Tufts study seems to be the one often most cited. Here's a couple of other articles on it. It seems for now they only reliable prevention is having an AED nearby.


Louis was wearing a standard chest protector when he died. But experts say these thick and sturdy barriers made for lacrosse goalies, along with the typical gear worn by baseball catchers and hockey goalies, do not protect a child from commotio cordis. Outside the Lines found even specialized "heart guards" can't pass NOCSAE's new commotio cordis standard. Parents, the experts say, are just wasting their money on false promises.

The specialized "heart guards" and "chest guards" are easy to find for sale online, with some specifically citing commotio cordis in their advertising. Outside the Lines purchased roughly a dozen, ranging in cost from $25 to more than $125. Most look like compression shirts with extra padding or hard plastic sewn into the fabric. One, for example, claims it is an "important piece of equipment that can give parents and coaches the peace of mind that their player's hearts will be protected every game," while another promises to "build player confidence while reducing the possibility of injury or death!"

Until this year, there hasn't been a way to test those claims. But using money from NOCSAE and the Acompora Memorial Foundation, Dr. Link has developed a biomechanical model that replicates the conditions under which commotio occurs and can test whether a heart guard or chest protector can actually prevent it.

"It's the first time in my experience where we've gone from knowing nothing about an injury to having a standard, that if equipment meets that standard, will in fact eliminate that death," Oliver says. "That's a really rare circumstance."

For the test, an air cannon shoots a ball at just the right speed into a "mechanical surrogate," where internal sensors precisely measure the force of the ball. So far, nothing has passed NOCSAE's chest protector standard. Meaning, there are currently no heart or chest guards on the market that can prove they can prevent commotio cordis.

Link says many of the devices don't even cover the right spot. The majority cover the center of the sternum, at the top of the chest just below the neck. But Dr. Link says the heart is located farther left, near the bottom of the rib cage, closer to the belly than the neck. "Make a fist with your left hand," he instructs. "That's roughly the size of your heart. Now place the bottom of your fist on the very bottom left rib" with your thumb pointing toward your left nipple. "That's where your heart is."

"They just make those false claims," Karen says about the devices that can't pass the NOCSAE standard. They promise false security to parents, she says, because parents will think, "'My child's wearing that particular chest protector, so everything's going to be fine.' And that's not true. It was such a lie."

A Long Island mother turns tragedy into awareness of cardiac issues in sports



https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...motio-cordis-standard-met-20160408-story.html

https://www.sportsmedtoday.com/commotio-cordis-va-88.htm

MNDad said:

I just searched for "commotio cordis" and "heart guard" The Tufts study seems to be the one often most cited. Here's a couple of other articles on it. It seems for now they only reliable prevention is having an AED nearby.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...motio-cordis-standard-met-20160408-story.html

Click to expand...

That is the Article that led me to start this thread asking about Unequal

At the bottom of the article,

"His team tested combinations of three foams with two different polymers — including one similar to Kevlar — developed by Unequal Technologies, an 8-year-old Pennsylvania company that integrates military-grade technology into sports gear.

The researchers tested 12 combinations on pigs and found three that cut incidents of ventricular fibrillation from 54 percent in the control group to 5, 8 and 20 percent.

"It is reasonable to expect that chest protector designs incorporating these novel materials will be effective in the prevention of commotio cordis on the playing field," the authors wrote in a paper published online last month in the Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine."

It's deja vu all over again.... seem's like we covered this same back and forth fairly recently? Knowledge and technology is improving rapidly. It's not that long ago that the idea of having a portable AED, at an affordable price was even on the radar.

The materials and design of these guards has come a long way in a short time and they will only continue to get better. In the meantime, if a kid wears one and it provides any measure of physical protection and perhaps even some mental peace of mind, what's the problem? It doesn't hinder in anyway that kids athletic performance does it? Now granted, if they are sold purely based on unfounded claims of exaggerated protection and a parent thinks they've completely eliminated risk to their child by having the kid wear one then that's a problem. I'm not suggesting we endorse them as a cure all and try to bank on the "sucker born every minute" mentality but I also don't believe that we should be discouraging someone who wants that, however minimal, extra possibility of protection.

I am just trying to figure out if the unequal is worth the $ compared to the others. I understand that worth is all relative. but if the guards that only cover the center of the chest don't do anything, than it would seem like, yes the unequal is worth the extra $$.

Tatonka said:

It's deja vu all over again.... seem's like we covered this same back and forth fairly recently? Knowledge and technology is improving rapidly. It's not that long ago that the idea of having a portable AED, at an affordable price was even on the radar.

The materials and design of these guards has come a long way in a short time and they will only continue to get better. In the meantime, if a kid wears one and it provides any measure of physical protection and perhaps even some mental peace of mind, what's the problem? It doesn't hinder in anyway that kids athletic performance does it? Now granted, if they are sold purely based on unfounded claims of exaggerated protection and a parent thinks they've completely eliminated risk to their child by having the kid wear one then that's a problem. I'm not suggesting we endorse them as a cure all and try to bank on the "sucker born every minute" mentality but I also don't believe that we should be discouraging someone who wants that, however minimal, extra possibility of protection.

Click to expand...

I've got no problem with parents having their kids wear one. My issue is with those who want them mandated and question the parenting skills of those who don't.