Key result
Specific diastolic dysfunction algorithms show wide prevalence variability but independently predict 30-day mortality.
Why the study?
Diagnosis of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction in septic shock patients is challenging and the prevalence and prognostic value vary according to different diagnostic algorithms.
Do different diagnostic algorithms for left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) provide varying prevalence and prognostic value for 30-day mortality in adult septic shock patients?
Observational (n=98)
No
Do different diagnostic algorithms for left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) provide varying prevalence and prognostic value for 30-day mortality in adult septic shock patients?
In septic shock patients, the prevalence of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction varies widely depending on the echocardiographic diagnostic algorithm used, though prognostic discrimination for 30-day mortality remains modest across all approaches.
LVDD prevalence and prognostic value in septic shock vary by algorithm; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) in the context of septic shock is challenging. We aimed to compare different algorithms applied to septic patients. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a prospective, single-center study of 98 consecutive adult septic shock patients undergoing comprehensive speckle-tracking echocardiography within 24 h of ICU admission. We studied the prevalence and the prognostic value of five LVDD diagnostic algorithms:2016-American Society of Echocardiography (ASE)/European Association CardioVascular Imaging(EACVI), 2024-British Society of Echocardiography(BSE), 2025-ASE, Lanspa-simplified criteria, and a further Lanspa-modified version hereby proposed (adding LVDD diagnosis when LV ejection fraction< 50%, as in 2016-ASE-EACVI guidelines). Logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to explore the association between algorithms and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: The prevalence of LVDD on day 1 varied widely, ranging from 32.7%(Lanspa) to 72.4%(2024-BSE). Concordance between the three cardiology guidelines ranged from slight to moderate: the lowest agreement among them was observed between the 2016-ASE/EACVI and the 2025-ASE criteria(55.1%, Kappa 0.10), whereas the highest agreement across all five algorithms was seen between the 2016-ASE/EACVI and the Lanspa-modified criteria(88.8%, Kappa 0.77). When correcting for severity score, need for invasive ventilation, and norepinephrine dose, independent prognostic values for 30-day mortality were observed only for the 2025-ASE, the Lanspa and the Lanspa-modified algorithms, but all algorithms had similar predictive performances. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of LVDD in septic shock is highly dependent on the diagnostic algorithm utilized. Although only the 2025-ASE, Lanspa, and Lanspa-modified algorithms demonstrated independent prognostic value after multivariable adjustment, prognostic discrimination for 30-day mortality was moderate and comparable across all approaches.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gonzalez et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Septic shock (n=98). Different left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) diagnostic algorithms vs. Comparison between algorithms (2016-ASE/EACVI, 2024-BSE, 2025-ASE, Lanspa, Lanspa-modified) was evaluated on Prevalence of LVDD on day 1 and 30-day mortality. The prevalence of LVDD on day 1 varied widely from 32.7% to 72.4% depending on the algorithm; the 2025-ASE, Lanspa, and Lanspa-modified algorithms demonstrated independent prognostic value for 30-day mortality.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: