Risk Factors in FEI Endurance Rides 2010-2016 Dr Euan D. Bennet Dr - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
risk factors in fei endurance rides 2010 2016
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Risk Factors in FEI Endurance Rides 2010-2016 Dr Euan D. Bennet Dr - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Feb 19, 2024 17 likes •628 views

Risk Factors in FEI Endurance Rides 2010-2016 Dr Euan D. Bennet Dr Tim D. H. Parkin University of Glasgow Euan.Bennet@glasgow.ac.uk Project overview Direct collaboration (FEI-funded) between the University of Glasgow and the FEI.

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Risk Factors in FEI Endurance Rides 2010-2016

Dr Euan D. Bennet

Dr Tim D. H. Parkin

University of Glasgow Euan.Bennet@glasgow.ac.uk

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Project overview

  • Direct collaboration (FEI-funded) between the

University of Glasgow and the FEI.

  • Complete Endurance database from 2010-

2016 available for study.

  • Data set: 97,462 horse starts in 5,874 events

across all nine Region Groups.

2 of 58

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Project goals

Horse welfare goals

Quantifying risk factors at horse-, rider-, and ride-level. Through regulation and education, reduce the risks of serious injury. Allow for extra veterinary attention for horses in high-risk categories, based on past and real-time data during rides.

Academic goals

Large-scale epidemiological study

  • f

Endurance riding

  • n

an unprecedented scale Completeness of data set allows detailed investigation

  • f

both known and new risk factors. Predictive models built using many more risk factors than ever previously available.

3 of 58

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Project goals

Horse welfare goals

Quantifying risk factors at horse-, rider-, and ride-level. Through regulation and education, reduce the risks of serious injury. Allow for extra veterinary attention for horses in high-risk categories, based on past and real-time data during rides.

Academic goals

Large-scale epidemiological study

  • f

Endurance riding

  • n

an unprecedented scale Completeness of data set allows detailed investigation

  • f

both known and new risk factors. Predictive models built using many more risk factors than ever previously available.

4 of 58

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Descriptive statistics

  • Of 97,462 horse starts during the time period

covered:

– 35,891 (36.8%) were eliminated at a vet gate (mostly due to a “Failure to Qualify” [FTQ], a small minority for other reasons such as disqualification.)

5 of 58

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Descriptive statistics

  • Of 97,462 horse starts during the time period

covered:

– 35,891 (36.8%) were eliminated at a vet gate (mostly due to a “Failure to Qualify” [FTQ], a small minority for other reasons such as disqualification.)

  • Two sub-categories of FTQ outcome:

– FTQ due to Lameness (FTQ LA) – FTQ due to Metabolic problems (FTQ ME)

6 of 58

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Annual elimination rates

7 of 58

slide-8
SLIDE 8

FTQ LA and FTQ ME by Region Group

5 10 15 20 25 30 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX Percentage of starts ending in FTQ LA Region Group 2 4 6 8 10 12 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX Percentage of starts ending in FTQ ME Region Group

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Epidemiological Study

  • Three negative outcomes modelled for:

– Failure to Qualify (any reason): FTQ – FTQ due to Lameness: FTQ LA – FTQ due to Metabolic problems: FTQ LA

  • 27 potential risk factors modelled so far:
  • ngoing study investigating more.

9 of 58

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Outline of results

  • 1. Horse-, Rider-, and Ride-level risk factors

– Risk factors applicable to every horse in the data set

  • 2. Average riding speeds

– New risk factors involving riding speeds

  • 3. Mandatory rest periods

– Risk factors applicable to returning horses – New risk factor based on rest time between rides

10 of 58

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Risk factors

  • Identified risk factors at Rider-level:

– Male rider (25% increased risk) – Rider has one or more previous FTQ MEs (10%)

  • Identified risk factors at Ride-level:

– Region Group (various differences) – Ride distance – 120km (20-30%) – Year (various different years) – Field size – 30+ or 60+ (20%)

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Risk factors

  • Identified risk factors at Horse level:

– Entire males (12%) – Age – over 12 yr. old (13%) – Average riding speed in different loops (see later)

  • For returning horses:

– Rest time relative to Mandatory Rest Period – Result in previous ride – Recent intensity of ride schedule

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Example: Outcome in previous ride

13 of 58

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Average Riding Speeds

14 of 58

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Average riding speeds

  • New risk factors: average riding speeds in each

individual loop, and for the entire ride.

  • High riding speeds have previously been

postulated as a potential explanation for the high elimination rates in Endurance riding.

  • Big differences between Region Group VII and

the rest of the World.

15 of 58

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Loop 1 speed

16 of 58

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Loop 2 speed

17 of 58

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Loop 3 speed

18 of 58

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Loop 4 speed

19 of 58

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Elimination in Loop 3

20 of 58

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Elimination in Loop 3

21 of 58

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Elimination in Loop 4

22 of 58

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Loop speed combinations

LOOP 1 FAST MEDIUM SLOW LOOP 2 FAST MEDIUM SLOW LOOP 3 FAST MEDIUM SLOW Etc. Risk of FTQ Loop X….given speed in previous loops.

Low

LOOP 1

  • V. High

High Med

LOOP 2

  • V. High

High Low Med

LOOP 3

  • V. High

High Low Med

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Speed in Loops 1 and 2

24 of 58

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Speed in Loops 1, 2, and 3

25 of 58

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Conclusions – riding speed

  • Association between high average riding speeds

(particularly during Loops 1 and 2) FTQ outcomes.

  • Furthermore, associations between high average

riding speeds in Loop 1 and 2, and FTQ during Loops 2, 3, and 4 specifically.

  • Certain combinations of riding speeds in Loops 1-

3 are predictive of FTQ outcomes during Loops 3 and 4.

  • High riding speeds in Loops 1-2 are particularly

associated with FTQ ME outcomes.

26 of 58

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Mandatory Rest Periods

27 of 58

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Mandatory rest periods

  • Current mandatory rest periods (MRP)

– Additional rest times if previous ride ended in FTQ.

  • New risk factor: days over MRP since last ride.

Distance Completed in last ride MRP (days) MRP if “irregular gait” MRP if “invasive treatment” Start – 40km 5 19 65 40 – 80km 12 26 72 80 – 120km 19 33 79 120 – 140km 26 40 86 > 140km 33 47 93

28 of 58

slide-29
SLIDE 29

MRP as a risk factor

  • Each returning horse has a “rest time over MRP”

based on the applicable mandatory rest period.

  • Compared to “greater than 30 days over MRP

since previous ride”

  • Category “less than 1 day over MRP since

previous ride” covers pre-2014 when current MRPs enforced.

29 of 58

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Horse-level: Rest time

30 of 58

slide-31
SLIDE 31

FTQs prevented by MRPs

  • Current mandatory rest periods have been in

place since 2014 – covering 3 out of 7 years studied.

  • Possible to estimate how many horses “saved”

from FTQ.

  • Can also estimate the potential impact of

extending MRPs.

31 of 58

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Extending MRPs

  • The mandatory rest period a horse must observe

after a ride depends on the distance it covered during that ride.

  • Given the risks associated with high riding speed

(See also Prof Whitton’s presentation), MRPs could also take into account the recorded speed

  • f the horse during the ride.

– In this example we consider speed in Loops 1 and 2

32 of 58

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Extending MRPs

  • Model 1: extend MRPs only for horses recorded as

riding “fast” (in top 25% of all horses, >20 km/h) during Loop 1 or Loop 2 of their previous ride.

  • Model 2: extend MRPs for everyone i.e. a flat increase

to each existing MRP.

  • Model 3: extend MRPs for everyone by 7 days, with an

additional MRP for those riding “fast” in Loop 1 or Loop 2.

  • Model 4: extend MRPs for everyone by 14 days, with

an additional MRP for those riding “fast” in Loop 1 or Loop 2.

33 of 58

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Potential impact – LA outcomes

34 of 58

NUMBER OF LA OUTCOMES PREVENTED

No penalty for speed +7 days for speeding +14 days for speeding

Current MRPs 76 107 54 + 7 days for all 222 247 240 + 14 days for all 299 341 299

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Potential impact – LA outcomes

35 of 58

NUMBER OF LA OUTCOMES PREVENTED

No penalty for speed +7 days for speeding +14 days for speeding

Current MRPs 76 107 54 + 7 days for all 222 247 240 + 14 days for all 299 341 299 Clear benefit

  • f a one-week

speeding fine… … is not improved by a two-week fine

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Potential impact – LA outcomes

36 of 58

NUMBER OF LA OUTCOMES PREVENTED

No penalty for speed +7 days for speeding +14 days for speeding

Current MRPs 76 107 54 + 7 days for all 222 247 240 + 14 days for all 299 341 299

Least impact

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Potential impact – LA outcomes

37 of 58

NUMBER OF LA OUTCOMES PREVENTED

No penalty for speed +7 days for speeding +14 days for speeding

Current MRPs 76 107 54 + 7 days for all 222 247 240 + 14 days for all 299 341 299

Highest impact but high cost

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Potential impact – LA outcomes

38 of 58

NUMBER OF LA OUTCOMES PREVENTED

No penalty for speed +7 days for speeding +14 days for speeding

Current MRPs 76 107 54 + 7 days for all 222 247 240 + 14 days for all 299 341 299

Best-value impact?

slide-39
SLIDE 39

ME OUTCOMES

39 of 58

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Potential impact – ME outcomes

40 of 58

NUMBER OF ME OUTCOMES PREVENTED

No penalty for speed +7 days for speeding +14 days for speeding

Current MRPs 51 61 + 7 days for all 34 105 105 + 14 days for all 208 254 256

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Potential impact – ME outcomes

41 of 58

NUMBER OF ME OUTCOMES PREVENTED

No penalty for speed +7 days for speeding +14 days for speeding

Current MRPs 51 61 + 7 days for all 34 105 105 + 14 days for all 208 254 256 Clear benefit

  • f a one-week

speeding fine… … is not improved by a two-week fine

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Potential impact – ME outcomes

42 of 58

NUMBER OF ME OUTCOMES PREVENTED

No penalty for speed +7 days for speeding +14 days for speeding

Current MRPs 51 61 + 7 days for all 34 105 105 + 14 days for all 208 254 256

Least impact

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Potential impact – ME outcomes

43 of 58

NUMBER OF ME OUTCOMES PREVENTED

No penalty for speed +7 days for speeding +14 days for speeding

Current MRPs 51 61 + 7 days for all 34 105 105 + 14 days for all 208 254 256

Best-value impact

But significant extra benefits for additional cost

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Cost-benefit analysis

  • “Best value” MRP extension for LA outcomes is +7

days for all, with additional +7 days for horses riding >20 km/h in Loops 1 or 2.

  • This would extend MRPs by 7 days for all horses,

and an additional 7 days for 32% of horses (until rider behaviour changes).

  • However, +14 days for all +7 days for speeding

could prevent significantly higher numbers of LA and ME outcomes – worth considering.

44 of 58

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Conclusions – rest periods

  • Horses with longer rest periods between rides are less likely

to become injured.

  • Horses returning after FTQ outcomes are more likely to

experience the same outcome again.

  • Mandatory rest periods could be further increased as an

effective preventative measure, benefitting all horses.

  • Introducing a link between riding speed and MRP could

provide the additional benefit of modifying rider behaviour, reducing horses’ risk of FTQ in both current and future rides.

45 of 58

slide-46
SLIDE 46

Take-home message

  • Recommend extending the present mandatory rest periods

as follows:

– +7 days for all horses (benefits all horses, 9% of horses would have had a longer mandatory wait before returning) – +7 days for horses recorded as riding at >20 km/h during Loops 1 or 2 (affects 32% of horses).

  • If acceptable to the community, further benefit could be

gained by extending the present mandatory rest periods even further:

– +14 days for all horses (benefits all horses, 15% would have had a longer mandatory rest period) – +7 days for horses recorded as riding at >20 km/h during Loops 1 or 2 (affects 32% of horses).

46 of 58

slide-47
SLIDE 47

Thanks for your attention!

47 of 58

slide-48
SLIDE 48

Extra slides

48 of 58

slide-49
SLIDE 49

Ride distance

49 of 58

slide-50
SLIDE 50

Ride distance

50 of 58

slide-51
SLIDE 51

Horse age

51 of 58

slide-52
SLIDE 52

Horse age

52 of 58

slide-53
SLIDE 53

Ride-level: Year

53 of 58

slide-54
SLIDE 54

Ride-level: Region Group

54 of 58

slide-55
SLIDE 55

Ride-level: Distance

55 of 58

slide-56
SLIDE 56

Ride-level: Field size

56 of 58

slide-57
SLIDE 57

Horse-level: Gender

57 of 58

slide-58
SLIDE 58

Horse-level: Age

58 of 58

slide-59
SLIDE 59

Rider-level: Gender

59 of 58

slide-60
SLIDE 60

Horse-level: Recent intensity of ride schedule

60 of 58

slide-61
SLIDE 61

Rider-level: number of previous FTQ ME outcomes

61 of 58