Why the study?
Appropriate assessment of diastology is imperative in HFpEF, prompting the ASE to release criteria to standardize diastolic dysfunction assessment and simplify diagnosis.
How accurately do physicians report diastolic function in patients with preserved ejection fraction compared to the standardized 2016 ASE guidelines?
How accurately do physicians report diastolic function in patients with preserved ejection fraction compared to the standardized 2016 ASE guidelines?
There is significant physician variability and suboptimal accuracy in reporting diastolic function compared to standardized ASE guidelines, highlighting a need for targeted quality improvement and education in echocardiography.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Limited concordance in diastolic reporting; leaves open whether education or standardized templates improve ASE guideline adherence.
To help standardize the assessment of diastolic dysfunction in the United States, the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) released criteria for the assessment of diastology in patients with normal and abnormal ejection fraction. As heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in cardiac patients, it is imperative to assess diastology appropriately. Echocardiography is the mainstay in the assessment of diastolic function; with the new ASE guidelines, diagnosis is simplified especially in patients that have preserved baseline ejection fraction. Our study aimed to determine the extent of physician variability in diastology reporting at our medical center after the release of the new ASE criteria.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Patel et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: