Published in

Wiley Open Access, Journal of the American Heart Association, 18(10), 2021

DOI: 10.1161/jaha.121.021165

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Validation of the 2016 ASE/EACVI Guideline for Diastolic Dysfunction in Patients With Unexplained Dyspnea and a Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Background Echocardiography is considered the cornerstone of the diagnostic workup of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Thus far, validation of the 2016 American Society of Echocardiography/European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (ASE/EACVI) echo‐algorithm for evaluation of diastolic (dys)function in a patient suspected of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction has been limited. Methods and Results The diagnostic performance of the 2016 ASE/EACVI algorithm was assessed in 204 patients evaluated for unexplained dyspnea or pulmonary hypertension with echocardiogram and right heart catheterization. Invasively measured pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) was used as the gold standard. In addition, the diagnostic performance of H 2 FPEF score and NT‐proBNP (N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide) were evaluated. There was a poor correlation between indexed left atrial volume, E/e′ (septal and average) or early mitral inflow (E), and PCWP ( r =0.25–0.30, P values all <0.01). No correlation was found in our cohort between e′ (septal or lateral) or tricuspid valve regurgitation and PCWP. The correlation between diastolic function grades of the ASE/EACVI algorithm and PCWP was poor ( r =0.17, P <0.05). The ASE/EACVI algorithm had a sensitivity and specificity of 35% and 87%, respectively; an accuracy of 67% and an area under the curve of 0.56. Moreover, in 30% of cases the algorithm was not applicable or indeterminate. H 2 FPEF score had a modest correlation with PCWP ( r =0.44, P <0.0001), and accuracy was 73%; NT‐proBNP correlated weakly with PCWP ( r =0.24, P <0.001), and accuracy was 57%. Conclusions The 2016 ASE/EACVI algorithm for the assessment of diastolic function has a limited diagnostic accuracy in patients evaluated for unexplained dyspnea and/or pulmonary hypertension, and especially sensitivity to detect diastolic dysfunction was low.