Evaluate the sensitivity and specificity echocardiography in trans-Doppler and tissue Doppler method in the estimation of left ventricular end-diastolic pressure

Diagnostic Accuracy of Tissue Doppler Index E/e' for Evaluating Left Ventricular Filling Pressure and Diastolic Dysfunction/Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Tissue Doppler index E/è is used clinically and in multidisciplinary research for estimation of left ventricular filling pressure (LVFP) and diastolic dysfunction (DD)/heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Its diagnostic accuracy is not well studied.

Methods and Results

From the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane databases, we identified 24 studies reporting E/è and invasive LVFP in preserved EF (≥50%). In random‐effects models, E/è had poor to mediocre linear correlation with LVFP. Summary sensitivity and specificity (with 95% CIs) for the American Society of Echocardiography–recommended E/è cutoffs (lateral, mean, and septal, respectively) to identify elevated LVFP was estimated by using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic analysis. Summary sensitivity was 30% (9–48%), 37% (13–61%), and 24% (6–46%), and summary specificity was 92% (82–100%), 91% (80–99%), and 98% (92–100%). Positive likelihood ratio (LR+) was <5 for lateral and mean E/è. LR+ was slightly >10 for septal E/è obtained from 4 studies (cumulative sample size <220). For excluding elevated LVFP, summary sensitivity for E/è (lateral, mean, and septal, respectively) was 64% (38–86%), 36% (3–74%), and 50% (14–81%), while summary specificity was 73% (54–89%), 83% (49–100%), and 89% (66–100%). Because of data set limitations, meaningful inference for identifying HFpEF by using E/è could not be drawn. With the use of quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies questionnaire), we found substantial risks of bias and/or applicability.

Conclusions

There is insufficient evidence to support that E/è can reliably estimate LVFP in preserved EF. The diagnostic accuracy of E/è to identify/exclude elevated LVFP and DD/HFpEF is limited and requires further validation in a well‐designed prospective clinical trial.

Association between left ventricular end-diastolic pressure and coronary artery disease as well as its extent and severity

Patients with myocardial ischemia exhibit increased left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP). The study was to evaluate the relationship between LVEDP measured by left cardiac catheterization and coronary artery disease (CAD) as well as its extent and severity evaluated by coronary angiography (CAG). 912 patients who underwent CAG and left cardiac catheterization were enrolled. There were 313 patients without CAD and 599 with CAD according to CAG. The extent and severity of coronary artery was evaluated by number of vessels and Gensini score. Analyze the correlation of LVEDP and CAD as well as its extent and severity. LVEDP was significantly higher in CAD patients than non-CAD (9.58±5.78 mmHg vs 10.9±5.46 mmHg, P<0.001), and was correlated independently with the presence of CAD (OR = 0.11, per 5 mmHg increase, 95% CI 1.02-1.29, P = 0.02). LVEDP was increased with an increase of number of vessels. By linear regression analysis, LVEDP was significantly associated with Gensini score (standardized β = 0.034, P = 0.001). In non-CAD group, LVEDP was only correlated with age (r = 0.123, P = 0.030). In conclusion, our findings suggest that elevated LVEDP was significantly associated with CAD as well as its extent and severity. LVEDP was only correlated with age in non-CAD patients. LVEDP measurement provides incremental clinical value for CAD and non-CAD patients.