Matthew F Gottbrecht1,2, Michael Salerno2,3,4, Gerard P Aurigemma1. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA. 2. Department of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA. 4. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We undertook this study of echocardiographic classification of diastolic function by three different algorithms to determine: (1) how frequently each algorithm classified patients and (2) how well the results agreed with one another. BACKGROUND: Several algorithms exist to grade diastolic function (DF), the Mayo Clinic scheme of Redfield et al (Mayo 2003) and the 2 ASE guideline documents of 2009 and 2016 (ASE 2009 and ASE 2016). METHODS: A total of 200 consecutive echocardiograms were retrospectively analyzed; mean age of patients 60.3 ± 3.5 years, 45% male. Echocardiograms were performed using Intersocietal Accreditation Commission guidelines. Diastolic function was assessed by Mayo 2003 and ASE 2009 and 2016. Coexisting conditions affecting DF analysis, such as mitral annular calcification (MAC), were tabulated. Data were compared using a paired t-test. Concordance between algorithms was assessed using the Kappa statistic. RESULTS: A total of 117 of 200 studies (58.5%) were excluded for the presence of coexisting conditions (51.5%), poor image quality (2.5%), or incomplete data (4.5%). Thirty-three of the remaining 83 studies (40%) received the same grade of DF based on assessments made using the Mayo 2003 and ASE 2016 algorithms; the Kappa statistic was 0.20. 36 of the 83 studies (43%) received the same grade of DF based on assessments made using the ASE 2009 and ASE 2016 algorithms; the Kappa statistic was 0.25. CONCLUSION: Assessment of diastolic function via echocardiography cannot be reliably accomplished in approximately 50% of patients using current guidelines. Further, when studies are suitable for assessment, widely used guidelines yield discordant results.
OBJECTIVE: We undertook this study of echocardiographic classification of diastolic function by three different algorithms to determine: (1) how frequently each algorithm classified patients and (2) how well the results agreed with one another. BACKGROUND: Several algorithms exist to grade diastolic function (DF), the Mayo Clinic scheme of Redfield et al (Mayo 2003) and the 2 ASE guideline documents of 2009 and 2016 (ASE 2009 and ASE 2016). METHODS: A total of 200 consecutive echocardiograms were retrospectively analyzed; mean age of patients 60.3 ± 3.5 years, 45% male. Echocardiograms were performed using Intersocietal Accreditation Commission guidelines. Diastolic function was assessed by Mayo 2003 and ASE 2009 and 2016. Coexisting conditions affecting DF analysis, such as mitral annular calcification (MAC), were tabulated. Data were compared using a paired t-test. Concordance between algorithms was assessed using the Kappa statistic. RESULTS: A total of 117 of 200 studies (58.5%) were excluded for the presence of coexisting conditions (51.5%), poor image quality (2.5%), or incomplete data (4.5%). Thirty-three of the remaining 83 studies (40%) received the same grade of DF based on assessments made using the Mayo 2003 and ASE 2016 algorithms; the Kappa statistic was 0.20. 36 of the 83 studies (43%) received the same grade of DF based on assessments made using the ASE 2009 and ASE 2016 algorithms; the Kappa statistic was 0.25. CONCLUSION: Assessment of diastolic function via echocardiography cannot be reliably accomplished in approximately 50% of patients using current guidelines. Further, when studies are suitable for assessment, widely used guidelines yield discordant results.
Authors: David Playford; Geoff Strange; David S Celermajer; Geoffrey Evans; Gregory M Scalia; Simon Stewart; David Prior Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 6.875