English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Public hospital(s). Main funding source(s): Al-mouwasat University Hospital and University Heart Surgery Center in Damascus, Syrian Arab Republic. Background Left ventricular filling pressure assessment is a challenge. Three guidelines concerned about this are: EACVI/ASE 2016, ESC 2016 and the HFA 2019 guidelines. Echo assessment is a corner stone in their algorithms with different cutoffs and different parameters used depending on expert consensus that should be validated in an invasive manner as the authors stated. Aims This study validates and tests the accuracy of the different cutoffs and parameters used in echo LV filling pressure assessment in the three guidelines: EACVI/ASE 2016, ESC 2016 and HFA 2019 by direct measure in the catheterization lab. Methods 82 patients with EF ≥ 50%, signs and symptoms of HF underwent transthoracic echocardiography immediately before catheterization. Av E/e", TR, LAVI, LVMI, RWT, LV wall thickness, Septal, lateral and mean e" were used to assess LV filling pressure with respect to EACVI/ASE 2016, ESC 2016 and HFA guidelines algorithms" different cutoffs and  parameters used. This study used LV pre-A wave with a cutoff &amp;gt;12mmhg defined high as a reference and then we compared the results. Results all the results of functional and structural echo parameters" diagnostic criteria (sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV and accuracy) are summarized in (Table:1 + 2). Conclusion From an echo view, each algorithm depends on  modest to high specific but low to modest sensitive echo parameters. There is no single parameter makes a guidelines superior to others. Although that the fact of combining more echo indices make the diagnosis and eventually the algorithm more reliable as in HFA 2019, that was for the cost of simplicity and ease of application. Av E/e"&amp;gt;13 was the best cutoff (ESC 2016). Orientation for the cause of use (sensitivity, specificity, NPV or PPV) should employ the echo indices and cutoffs in best benefit, as for mitral (e"), although that septal &amp;lt; 7 and lateral e"&amp;lt;10 (EACVI/ASE 2016 and HFA 2019) had an overall more accuracy than mean e"&amp;lt;9 (ESC 2016), sub analysis showed that the first is better used for specificity and NPV but the latter better for sensitivity and PPV. Same idea for LVMI≥145/122 (m/f)+RWT &amp;gt; 0.42 (HFA 2019 major criteria) which had more specificity than LVMI≥115/95 (m/F) cutoffs (HFA2019 minor criteria and ESC2016) but in the cost of lower sensitivity, furthermore, sub analysis showed this LVMI high cutoffs were more benefit in female than in men after taking the NPV, PPV and accuracy in consideration. Abstract Figure.  Abstract Figure.

european heart journal

Invasive validation of the different echo parameters and cut-offs among the trilogy of left ventricular filling pressure assessment guidelines: EACVI/ASE 2016, ESC 2016, HFA 2019