Key result
An echo-Doppler decision model predicted elevated left ventricular filling pressure with 80% sensitivity and 78% specificity in a prospective testing group of patients with LV dysfunction.
Why the study?
Does a sequential echo-Doppler decision model accurately predict elevated left ventricular filling pressure in patients with heart failure across a wide range of ejection fractions?
Observational (n=270)
Does a sequential echo-Doppler decision model accurately predict elevated left ventricular filling pressure in patients with heart failure across a wide range of ejection fractions?
A sequential echo-Doppler decision model provides good diagnostic accuracy for non-invasively predicting elevated left ventricular filling pressure in heart failure patients, particularly those with preserved ejection fraction.
May aid non-invasive assessment in LV dysfunction; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before practice change.
AIMS: To test a decision model for non-invasive estimation of left ventricular filling pressure (LVFP) in patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and a wide range of ejection fractions (EF). METHODS AND RESULTS: In patients with LV dysfunction (n = 270; EF = 42 +/- 16%), classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was used to generate a model for the prediction of elevated LVFP, defined as pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) >15 mmHg, in a derivation cohort (n = 178). At each step of the decision tree, nodes including single or multiple criteria connected by Boolean operators were tested to achieve the best information entropy gain. Averaged mitral-to-myocardial early velocities ratio (E/e') > or =13 OR E-wave deceleration time <150 ms was closely associated with elevated LVFP. Alternatively, prediction of PCWP >15 mmHg needed the following criteria to be satisfied: (i) intermediate E/e' (13 > E/e' > 8); (ii) left atrial volume index >40 mL/m(2) OR ratio of mitral E-wave and colour M-mode propagation velocity >2 OR difference in duration of pulmonary vein and mitral flow at atrial contraction >30 ms; (iii) estimated pulmonary artery systolic pressure >35 mmHg. Patients were correctly allocated according to PCWP with an 87% sensitivity and a 90% specificity. Compared with the best single parameter estimating LVFP, a 17% relative increase in accuracy was achieved in patients with EF >50%. The model was prospectively validated in a testing group (n = 92): 80% sensitivity, 78% specificity. CONCLUSION: This sequential testing is useful to non-invasively predict LVFP in patients with LV dysfunction, especially in those with preserved EF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dini et al. (2010) conducted an observational in Left ventricular dysfunction (n=270). Echo-Doppler decision model vs. Best single parameter estimating LVFP was evaluated on Prediction of elevated left ventricular filling pressure (PCWP >15 mmHg). An echo-Doppler decision model predicted elevated left ventricular filling pressure with 80% sensitivity and 78% specificity in a prospective testing group of patients with LV dysfunction.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: