Why the study?
Electrocardiographic features are well-known for HFrEF, but not for LVDD and HFpEF, where they could help identify high-risk individuals in primary care.
Do specific electrocardiographic features accurately diagnose left ventricular diastolic dysfunction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in suspected individuals?
Do specific electrocardiographic features accurately diagnose left ventricular diastolic dysfunction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in suspected individuals?
Specific ECG features related to the diastolic interval and repolarization show diagnostic potential for LVDD, but evidence for HFpEF is limited and lacks sex-specific stratification.
Background: Electrocardiographic features are well-known for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but not for left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). As ECG features could help to identify high-risk individuals in primary care, we systematically reviewed the literature for ECG features diagnosing women and men suspected of LVDD and HFpEF. Methods and Results: Among the 7,127 records identified, only 10 studies reported diagnostic measures, of which 9 studied LVDD. For LVDD, the most promising features were T-end-P/(PQ * age), which is the electrocardiographic equivalent of the passive-to-active filling (AUC: 0.91–0.96), and repolarization times (QTc interval ≥ 350 ms, AUC: 0.85). For HFpEF, the Cornell product ≥ 1,800 mm * ms showed poor sensitivity of 40% (AUC: 0.62). No studies presented results stratified by sex. Conclusion: Electrocardiographic features are not widely evaluated in diagnostic studies for LVDD and HFpEF. Only for LVDD, two ECG features related to the diastolic interval, and repolarization measures showed diagnostic potential. To improve diagnosis and care for women and men suspected of heart failure, reporting of sex-specific data on ECG features is encouraged.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ommen et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: