Echo-Doppler estimation of left ventricular filling pressure: results of the multicentre EACVI Euro-Filling study.
01 Sep 2017-European Journal of Echocardiography (Oxford University Press)-Vol. 18, Iss: 9, pp 961-968
TL;DR: The present Euro-Filling study demonstrates that the new 2016 recommendations for assessing LVFP non-invasively are fairly reliable and clinically useful, as well as superior to the 2009 recommendations in estimating invasive LVEDP.
Abstract: Aims The present Euro-Filling report aimed at comparing the diagnostic accuracy of the 2009 and 2016 echocardiographic grading algorithms for predicting invasively measured left ventricular filling pressure (LVFP). Method and results A total of 159 patients who underwent simultaneous evaluation of echo estimates of LVFP and invasive measurements of LV end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) were enrolled at nine EACVI centres. Thirty-nine (25%) patients had a reduced LV ejection fraction (<50%), 77 (64%) were in NYHA ≥ II, and 85 (53%) had coronary artery disease. Sixty-four (40%) patients had elevated LVEDP (≥15 mmHg). Taken individually, all echocardiographic Doppler estimates of LVFP (E/A, E/e', left atrial volume, tricuspid regurgitation jet velocity) were marginally correlated with LVEDP. By using the 2016 recommendations, 65% of patients with normal non-invasive estimate of LVFP had normal LVEDP, while 79% of those with elevated non-invasive LVFP had elevated invasive LVEDP. By using 2009 recommendations, 68% of the patients with normal non-invasive LVFP had normal LVEDP, while 55% of those with elevated non-invasive LVFP had elevated LVEDP. The 2016 recommendations (sensitivity 75%, specificity 74%, positive predictive value 39%, negative predictive value 93%, AUC 0.78) identified slightly better patients with elevated invasive LVEDP (≥ 15 mmHg) as compared with the 2009 recommendations (sensitivity 43%, specificity 75%, positive predictive value 49%, negative predictive value 71%, AUC 0.68). Conclusion The present Euro-Filling study demonstrates that the new 2016 recommendations for assessing LVFP non-invasively are fairly reliable and clinically useful, as well as superior to the 2009 recommendations in estimating invasive LVEDP.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: Authors/Task Force Members: Piotr Ponikowski* (Chairperson) (Poland), Adriaan A. Voors* (Co-Chair person) (The Netherlands), Stefan D. Anker (Germany), Héctor Bueno (Spain), John G. F. Cleland (UK), Andrew J. S. Coats (UK)
13,400 citations
3,645 citations
Charité1, University of Groningen2, Cardiff University3, University of Rennes4, University of Milan5, National University of Singapore6, University of Liège7, Brigham and Women's Hospital8, Boston University9, Utrecht University10, University of Zurich11, University of Amsterdam12, University of Belgrade13, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens14, University of Cyprus15
TL;DR: A new stepwise diagnostic process, the 'HFA-PEFF diagnostic algorithm', is recommended, which requires comprehensive echocardiography and requires comprehensive natriuretic peptide levels and is typically performed by a cardiologist.
Abstract: Making a firm diagnosis of chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains a challenge. We recommend a new stepwise diagnostic process, the 'HFA-PEFF diagnostic algorithm'. Step 1 (P=Pre-test assessment) is typically performed in the ambulatory setting and includes assessment for heart failure symptoms and signs, typical clinical demographics (obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, elderly, atrial fibrillation), and diagnostic laboratory tests, electrocardiogram, and echocardiography. In the absence of overt non-cardiac causes of breathlessness, HFpEF can be suspected if there is a normal left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, no significant heart valve disease or cardiac ischaemia, and at least one typical risk factor. Elevated natriuretic peptides support, but normal levels do not exclude a diagnosis of HFpEF. The second step (E: Echocardiography and Natriuretic Peptide Score) requires comprehensive echocardiography and is typically performed by a cardiologist. Measures include mitral annular early diastolic velocity (e'), LV filling pressure estimated using E/e', left atrial volume index, LV mass index, LV relative wall thickness, tricuspid regurgitation velocity, LV global longitudinal systolic strain, and serum natriuretic peptide levels. Major (2 points) and Minor (1 point) criteria were defined from these measures. A score ≥5 points implies definite HFpEF; ≤1 point makes HFpEF unlikely. An intermediate score (2-4 points) implies diagnostic uncertainty, in which case Step 3 (F1 : Functional testing) is recommended with echocardiographic or invasive haemodynamic exercise stress tests. Step 4 (F2 : Final aetiology) is recommended to establish a possible specific cause of HFpEF or alternative explanations. Further research is needed for a better classification of HFpEF.
825 citations
TL;DR: De Boer et al. as mentioned in this paper reviewed the work of as mentioned in this paper and found that the authors of the paper were concerned with the authorship of the document and not the content of the documents.
Abstract: Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Coordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Coordinator) (Germany), Magdy Abdelhamid (Egypt), Victor Aboyans (France), Stamatis Adamopoulos (Greece), Stefan D. Anker (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Riccardo Asteggiano (Italy), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Antoni Bayes‐Genis (Spain), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Werner Budts (Belgium), Maja Cikes (Croatia), Kevin Damman (Netherlands), Victoria Delgado (Netherlands), Paul Dendale (Belgium), Polychronis Dilaveris (Greece), Heinz Drexel (Austria), Justin Ezekowitz (Canada), Volkmar Falk (Germany), Laurent Fauchier (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), Alan Fraser (United Kingdom), Norbert Frey (Germany), Chris P. Gale (United Kingdom), Finn Gustafsson (Denmark), Julie Harris (United Kingdom), Bernard Iung (France), Stefan Janssens (Belgium), Mariell Jessup (United States of America), Aleksandra Konradi (Russia), Dipak Kotecha (United Kingdom), Ekaterini Lambrinou (Cyprus), Patrizio Lancellotti (Belgium), Ulf Landmesser (Germany), Christophe Leclercq (France), Basil S. Lewis (Israel), Francisco Leyva (United Kingdom), AleVs Linhart (Czech Republic), Maja‐Lisa Løchen (Norway), Lars H. Lund (Sweden), Donna Mancini (United States of America), Josep Masip (Spain), Davor Milicic (Croatia), Christian Mueller (Switzerland), Holger Nef (Germany), Jens‐Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Michel Noutsias (Germany), Steffen E. Petersen (United Kingdom), Anna Sonia Petronio (Italy), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Evgeny Schlyakhto (Russia), Petar Seferovic (Serbia), Michele Senni (Italy), Marta Sitges (Spain), Miguel Sousa‐Uva (Portugal), Carlo G. Tocchetti (Italy), Rhian M. Touyz (United Kingdom), Carsten Tschoepe (Germany), Johannes Waltenberger (Germany/Switzerland)
495 citations
TL;DR: The application of the new 2016 ASE/EACVI recommendations resulted in a much lower prevalence of diastolic dysfunction and the updated algorithm seems to be able to diagnose only the most advanced cases.
Abstract: Aims Diastolic dysfunction (DD) is frequent in the general population; however, the assessment of diastolic function remains challenging. We aimed to evaluate the impact of the recent 2016 American Society of Echocardiography (ASE)/European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) recommendations in the prevalence and grades of DD compared with the 2009 guidelines and the Canberra Study Criteria (CSC). Methods and results Within a population-based cohort, a total of 1000 individuals, aged ≥45 years, were evaluated retrospectively. Patients with previously known cardiac disease or ejection fraction <50% were excluded. Diastolic function was assessed by transthoracic echocardiography. DD prevalence and grades were determined according to the three classifications. The mean age was 62.0 ± 10.5 years and 37% were men. The prevalence of DD was 1.4% (n = 14) with the 2016 recommendations, 38.1% (n = 381) with the 2009 recommendations, and 30.4% (n = 304) using the CSC. The concordance between the updated recommendations and the other two was poor (from k = 0.13 to k = 0.18, P < 0.001). Regarding the categorization in DD grades, none of the 14 individuals with DD by the 2016 guidelines were assigned to Grade 1 DD, 64% were classified as Grade 2, 7% had Grade 3, and 29% had indeterminate grade. Conclusion The application of the new 2016 ASE/EACVI recommendations resulted in a much lower prevalence of DD. The concordance between the classifications was poor. The updated algorithm seems to be able to diagnose only the most advanced cases.
118 citations
References
More filters
University of Chicago1, University of Padua2, McGill University3, Johns Hopkins University4, French Institute of Health and Medical Research5, Uppsala University6, University of California, San Francisco7, MedStar Washington Hospital Center8, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven9, University of Liège10, Harvard University11, Ghent University Hospital12, University of Toronto13
TL;DR: This document provides updated normal values for all four cardiac chambers, including three-dimensional echocardiography and myocardial deformation, when possible, on the basis of considerably larger numbers of normal subjects, compiled from multiple databases.
Abstract: The rapid technological developments of the past decade and the changes in echocardiographic practice brought about by these developments have resulted in the need for updated recommendations to the previously published guidelines for cardiac chamber quantification, which was the goal of the joint writing group assembled by the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. This document provides updated normal values for all four cardiac chambers, including three-dimensional echocardiography and myocardial deformation, when possible, on the basis of considerably larger numbers of normal subjects, compiled from multiple databases. In addition, this document attempts to eliminate several minor discrepancies that existed between previously published guidelines.
11,568 citations
TL;DR: Recommendations for the evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function by echocardiography are made and further research is needed to determine the best method for this evaluation.
Abstract: Recommendations for the evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function by echocardiography
4,162 citations
"Echo-Doppler estimation of left ven..." refers background in this paper
...Recognition of this shortcoming has led to a first attempt by the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) and the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) in 2009 to combine these parameters into a series of algorithms.(5) To examine and validate the accuracy and clinical utility of individual echocardiographic parameters and of these algorithms, the EACVI Research committee launched in 2014 the Euro-Filling Study, a large multicentre prospective project with simultaneous assessment of invasive measurements and non-invasive estimates of LVFP....
[...]
TL;DR: Recommendations for the Evaluation of Left Ventricular Diastolic Function by Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging are presented.
Abstract: Recommendations for the Evaluation of Left Ventricular Diastolic Function by Echocardiography : An Update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging
4,020 citations
TL;DR: The assessment of left ventricular (LV) diastolic function and filling pressures is of paramount clinical importance to distinguish this syndrome from other diseases such as pulmonary disease resulting in dyspnea, to assess prognosis, and to identify underlying cardiac disease and its best treatment.
Abstract: The assessment of left ventricular (LV) diastolic function should be an integral part of a routine examination, particularly in patients presenting with dyspnea or heart failure. About half of patients with new diagnoses of heart failure have normal or near normal global ejection fractions (EFs). These patients are diagnosed with “diastolic heart failure” or “heart failure with preserved EF.”1 The assessment of LV diastolic function and filling pressures is of paramount clinical importance to distinguish this syndrome from other diseases such as pulmonary disease resulting in dyspnea, to assess prognosis, and to identify underlying cardiac disease and its best treatment.
LV filling pressures as measured invasively include mean pulmonary wedge pressure or mean left atrial (LA) pressure (both in the absence of mitral stenosis), LV end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP; the pressure at the onset of the QRS complex or after A-wave pressure), and pre-A LV diastolic pressure (Figure 1).Although these pressures are different in absolute terms, they are closely related, and they change in a predictable progression with myocardial disease, such that LVEDP increases prior to the rise in mean LA pressure.
Figure 1
The 4 phases of diastole are marked in relation to high-fidelity pressure recordings from the left atrium (LA) and left ventricle (LV) in anesthetized dogs. The first pressure crossover corresponds to the end of isovolumic relaxation and mitral valve opening. In the first phase, left atrial pressure exceeds left ventricular pressure, accelerating mitral flow. Peak mitral E roughly corresponds to the second crossover. Thereafter, left ventricular pressure exceeds left atrial pressure, decelerating mitral flow. These two phases correspond to rapid filling. This is followed by slow filling, with almost no pressure differences. During atrial contraction, left atrial pressure again exceeds left ventricular pressure. The solid arrow points to left ventricular minimal pressure, the dotted arrow to left ventricular …
3,659 citations
TL;DR: Mitral E velocity, corrected for the influence of relaxation (i.e., the E/Ea ratio), relates well to mean PCWP and may be used to estimate LV filling pressures.
2,911 citations