Pre-operative point-of-care assessment of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction, an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction is an acknowledged peri-operative risk factor that should be identified before surgery. This study aimed to evaluate a simplified echocardiographic method using e' and E/e' for identification and grading of diastolic dysfunction pre-operatively. METHODS: Ninety six ambulatory surgical patients were consecutively included to this prospective observational study. Pre-operative transthoracic echocardiography was conducted prior to surgery, and diagnosis of LV diastolic dysfunction was established by comprehensive and simplified assessment, and the results were compared. The accuracy of e'-velocities in order to discriminate patients with diastolic dysfunction was established by calculating accuracy, efficiency, positive (PPV) and negative predictive (NPV) values, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). RESULTS: Comprehensive assessment established diastolic dysfunction in 77% (74/96) of patients. Of these, 22/74 was categorized as mild dysfunction, 43/74 as moderate dysfunction and 9/74 as severe dysfunction. Using the simplified method with e' and E/e', diastolic dysfunction was established in 70.8% (68/96) of patients. Of these, 8/68 was categorized as mild dysfunction, 36/68 as moderate dysfunction and 24/68 as severe dysfunction. To discriminate diastolic dysfunction of any grade, e'-velocities (mean < 9 cm s- 1) had an AUROC of 0.901 (95%CI 0.840-0.962), with a PPV of 55.2%, a NPV of 90.9% and a test efficiency of 0.78. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that a simplified approach with tissue Doppler e'-velocities may be used to rule out patients with diastolic dysfunction pre-operatively, but together with E/e' ratio the severity of diastolic dysfunction may be overestimated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, Identifier: NCT03349593 . Date of registration 21/11/2017. https://clinicaltrials.gov .

Preoperative Point-of-Care Assessment of Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction With Transthoracic Echocardiography.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction is an acknowledged perioperative risk factor and should be identified before surgery. Conventional echocardiographic assessment of LV ejection fraction (LVEF) obtained by biplane LV volumes is the gold standard to detect LV systolic dysfunction. However, this modality needs extensive training and is time consuming. Hence, a feasible point-of-care screening method for this purpose is warranted. The aim of this study was to evaluate 3 point-of-care echocardiographic methods for identification of LV systolic dysfunction in comparison with biplane LVEF. METHODS: One hundred elective surgical patients, with a mean age of 63 ± 12 years and body mass index of 27 ± 4 kg/m2, were consecutively enrolled in this prospective observational study. Transthoracic echocardiography was conducted 1-2 hours before surgery. LVEF was obtained by automatic two-dimensional (2D) biplane ejection fraction (EF) software. We evaluated if Tissue Doppler Imaging peak systolic myocardial velocities (TDISm), anatomic M-mode E-point septal separation (EPSS), and conventional M-mode mitral annular plane systolic excursion (MAPSE) could discriminate LV systolic dysfunction (LVEF <50%) by calculating accuracy, efficiency, correlation, positive (PPV) respective negative predictive (NPV) values, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for each point-of-care method. RESULTS: LVEF<50% was identified in 22% (21 of 94) of patients. To discriminate an LVEF <50%, AUROC for TDISm (mean <8 cm/s) was 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.84; P < .001), with a PPV of 47% and an NPV of 90%. EPSS with a cutoff value of >6 mm had an AUROC 0.89 (95% CI, 0.80-0.98; P < .001), with a PPV of 67% and an NPV of 96%. MAPSE (mean <12 mm) had an AUROC 0.80 (95% CI, 0.70-0.90; P < 0.001) with a PPV of 57% and an NPV of 98%. CONCLUSIONS: All 3 point-of-care methods performed reasonably well to discriminate patients with LVEF <50%. The clinician may choose the most suitable method according to praxis and observer experience.