Key result
The 2025 ASE diastolic dysfunction algorithm improved discrimination of mortality risk compared to the 2016 algorithm (difference in AUC 0.02; 95% CI 0.001-0.04; P=0.03).
Its licence doesn't allow us to show a copy here.
Why the study?
It was uncertain whether the 2025 ASE diastolic dysfunction algorithm improves mortality prognostication compared with the 2016 algorithm in real-world practice.
Does the 2025 ASE diastolic dysfunction algorithm improve mortality prognostication compared to the 2016 algorithm in adults undergoing transthoracic echocardiography?
Observational (n=12,948)
Yes
Does the 2025 ASE diastolic dysfunction algorithm improve mortality prognostication compared to the 2016 algorithm in adults undergoing transthoracic echocardiography?
The 2025 ASE diastolic dysfunction guidelines reclassified 25.5% of patients, reduced indeterminate cases, and slightly improved mortality risk discrimination compared to the 2016 guidelines.
BACKGROUND: Whether the 2025 American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) diastolic dysfunction (DD) algorithm (DD25) improves mortality prognostication compared to the 2016 algorithm (DD16) in real-world practice is uncertain. METHODS: We applied the DD25 algorithm to adult transthoracic echocardiography reports across a large academic multisite echocardiography laboratory from 2018 2024, linked to state mortality data, and determined reclassification of DD and mortality risk. RESULTS: Of 12,948 included (age 62.8 ± 18.1, 51.4% women, 55.8% outpatient), 10,205 (78.8%) had diastology quantified by the 2016 and 2025 guidelines. Of these, 2,601 (25.5%) were reclassified by DD25 with increases in DD grade in 1,428 (54.9%) and decreases in 1,173 (45.1%). Among those reclassified, 2,391 (91.9%) had a single grade change in DD severity. A larger proportion of female patients (52% vs 48.7%) were classified as having DD by DD25 versus DD16. The rate of indeterminate DD was lower by DD25 (1,358 [10.4%]) vs DD16 (1,983 [15.3%]). The DD25 algorithm improved discrimination of mortality risk compared to DD16 (difference in areas under the curve = 0.02; 95% CI, 0.001-0.04; P = .03), although the magnitude of the associated risk across the follow-up period was similar after multivariable adjustment (P value for comparison of adjusted hazard ratios = .67). CONCLUSIONS: In a large academic health system, one-quarter of patients had reclassification of diastolic function by the 2025 ASE diastology guidelines. As compared to the 2016 algorithm, the 2025 algorithm resulted in a larger proportion with DD, less indeterminate diastolic function, and improved discrimination of mortality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Spetko et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Diastolic dysfunction (n=12,948). 2025 ASE diastolic dysfunction algorithm (DD25) vs. 2016 ASE diastolic dysfunction algorithm (DD16) was evaluated on Discrimination of mortality risk (Difference in AUC 0.02, 95% CI 0.001-0.04, p=0.03). The 2025 ASE diastolic dysfunction algorithm improved discrimination of mortality risk compared to the 2016 algorithm (difference in AUC 0.02; 95% CI 0.001-0.04; P=0.03).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: