Impact of the updated diastolic function guidelines in the real world. (1st March 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Yeung, Darwin F.; Jiang, River; Behnami, Delaram; Jue, John; Sharma, Rajat; Turaga, Mansi; Luong, Christina L.; Tsang, Michael Y.C.; Gin, Kenneth G.; Girgis, Hany; Lee, Pui-Kee; Nair, Parvathy; Abolmaesumi, Purang; Tsang, Teresa S.M.
• Is Part Of: International journal of cardiology. Volume 326(2021)
• Page Start: 124
• Page End: 130
• Publication Date: 2021-03-01
• Subjects: Diastolic function -- Echocardiography -- Heart failure; Cardiology -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 616.12
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2020.10.068
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0167-5273

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Echocardiographic assessment of diastolic function is complex but can aid in the diagnosis of heart failure, particularly in patients with preserved ejection fraction. In 2016, the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) published an updated algorithm for the evaluation of diastolic function. The objective of our study was to assess its impact on diastolic function assessment in a real-world cohort of echo studies. Methods: We retrospectively identified 71, 727 consecutive transthoracic echo studies performed at a tertiary care center between February 2010 and March 2016 in which diastolic function was reported based on the 2009 ASE Guidelines. We then programmed a software algorithm to assess diastolic function in these echo studies according to the 2016 ASE/EACVI Guidelines. Results: When diastolic function assessment based on the 2009 guidelines was compared to that using the 2016 guidelines, there were significant differences in proportion of studies classified as normal (23% vs. 32%) or indeterminate (43% vs. 36%) function, and mild (23% vs. 23%), moderate (10% vs. 8%), or severe (1% vs. 2%) diastolic dysfunction, with poor agreement between the two methods (Kappa 0.323, 95% CI 0.318–0.328). Furthermore, within the subgroup of studies with preserved ejection fraction and no evidence of myocardial disease, there was significant reclassification from mild diastolic dysfunction to normal diastolic function. Conclusion: The updated guidelines result in significant differences in diastolic function interpretation in the real world. Our findings have important implications for the identification of patients with or at risk for heart failure. Highlights: Diastolic function grading changed significantly after an update in guidelines. There was substantial reclassification from indeterminate to normal function. Patients with no heart disease tended to reclassify from mild dysfunction to normal. Up to 48% of echo studies received a different diastolic function interpretation. Updated guidelines have important implications in the diagnosis of heart failure.