Key result
Algorithm A of the 2016 ASE/EACVI recommendations identified invasively defined left ventricular diastolic dysfunction with low sensitivity (22.4%) but high specificity (90.7%) in patients with normal ejection fraction.
Why the study?
No prior study had assessed the diagnostic accuracy of algorithm A of the 2016 ASE/EACVI recommendations for evaluating LV diastolic dysfunction in patients with normal LVEF.
Cross-Sectional (n=94)
No
Effect estimate: Sensitivity 22.4%, Specificity 90.7%
May support diastolic dysfunction assessment in preserved EF; leaves open larger validation before routine use.
Background:Non-invasive evaluation of left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction (DD) and elevated LV filling pressure are crucial for diagnosing heart failure. The 2016 American Society of Echocardiography/European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (ASE/EACVI) recommendations for evaluating elevated LV filling pressure (algorithm B) have acceptable diagnostic accuracy, including in patients with reduced LV ejection fraction (EF). No prior study, however, has assessed the diagnostic accuracy of algorithm A of the ASE/EACVI recommendations for evaluating LVDD in patients with normal LVEF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yamamoto et al. (2019) conducted a cross-sectional in Coronary artery disease with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (n=94). Algorithm A of the 2016 ASE/EACVI recommendations vs. Invasive LV pressure measurement was evaluated on Identification of invasively defined left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (time constant τ≥48 ms and/or LVEDP ≥16 mmHg) (Sensitivity 22.4%, Specificity 90.7%). Algorithm A of the 2016 ASE/EACVI recommendations identified invasively defined left ventricular diastolic dysfunction with low sensitivity (22.4%) but high specificity (90.7%) in patients with normal ejection fraction.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: