Key result
Higher grade diastolic dysfunction in HFrEF is linked to ~54% greater chamber stiffness and filling energy.
Why the study?
The 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines for diastolic dysfunction do not provide quantifiable mechanistic information about diastolic function.
Does Parameterized Diastolic Filling (PDF) analysis provide mechanistic validation of the 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines for assessing diastolic dysfunction in patients with HFrEF?
Cross-Sectional (n=50)
Yes
Does Parameterized Diastolic Filling (PDF) analysis provide mechanistic validation of the 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines for assessing diastolic dysfunction in patients with HFrEF?
Parameterized Diastolic Filling analysis provides mechanistic validation for the 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines by demonstrating that higher grade diastolic dysfunction correlates with quantifiable increases in filling energy and resistive forces.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May reinforce 2016 diastolic grading in HFrEF; leaves open prospective validation of PDF metrics.
BACKGROUND: The American Society for Echocardiography/European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (ASE/EACVI) 2016 guidelines for assessment of diastolic dysfunction (DD) are based primarily on the effects of diastolic dysfunction on left ventricular filling hemodynamics. However, these measures do not provide quantifiable mechanistic information about diastolic function. The Parameterized Diastolic Filling (PDF) formalism is a validated theoretical framework that describes DD in terms of the physical properties of left ventricular filling. AIMS: We hypothesized that PDF analysis can provide mechanistic insight into the mechanical properties governing higher grade DD. METHODS: Patients referred for echocardiography showing reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (< 45%) were prospectively classified into DD grade according to 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines. Serial E-waves acquired during free breathing using pulsed wave Doppler of transmitral blood flow were analyzed using the PDF formalism. DD grade was unrelated to chamber viscoelasticity (21 ± 4 vs 20 ± 6 g/s, p = 0.32). Stiffness was inversely correlated with ejection fraction (r = - 0.39, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Higher grade DD was associated with changes in the mechanical properties that determine the physics of poorer left ventricular filling. These findings provide mechanistic insight into, and independent validation of the appropriateness of the 2016 guidelines for assessment of DD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Goldberg et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and diastolic dysfunction (n=50). Higher grade diastolic dysfunction (Grade 2 or 3) vs. Grade 1 diastolic dysfunction was evaluated on Chamber stiffness (k) (p=<0.001). Higher grade diastolic dysfunction (grade 2 or 3) was associated with increased chamber stiffness (261 vs 169 g/s2) and filling energy compared to grade 1 in patients with HFrEF.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: