Heart failure (HF) is among the most important and frequent complications of diabetes mellitus (DM). The detection of subclinical dysfunction is a marker of HF risk and presents a potential target... Show moreHeart failure (HF) is among the most important and frequent complications of diabetes mellitus (DM). The detection of subclinical dysfunction is a marker of HF risk and presents a potential target for reducing incident HF in DM. Left ventricular (LV) dysfunction secondary to DM is heterogeneous, with phenotypes including predominantly systolic, predominantly diastolic, and mixed dysfunction. Indeed, the pathogenesis of HF in this setting is heterogeneous. Effective management of this problem will require detailed phenotyping of the contributions of fibrosis, microcirculatory disturbance, abnormal metabolism, and sympathetic innervation, among other mechanisms. For this reason, an imaging strategy for the detection of HF risk needs to not only detect subclinical LV dysfunction (LVD) but also characterize its pathogenesis. At present, it is possible to identify individuals with DM at increased risk HF, and there is evidence that cardioprotection may be of benefit. However, there is insufficient justification for HF screening, because we need stronger evidence of the links between the detection of LVD, treatment, and improved outcome. This review discusses the options for screening for LVD, the potential means of identifying the underlying mechanisms, and the pathways to treatment. Show less
BACKGROUND: Assessment of left ventricular (LV) filling pressure is among the important components of a comprehensive echocardiographic report. Previous studies noted wide limits of agreement using... Show moreBACKGROUND: Assessment of left ventricular (LV) filling pressure is among the important components of a comprehensive echocardiographic report. Previous studies noted wide limits of agreement using 2009 American Society of Echocardiography/European Association of Echocardiography guidelines, but reproducibility of 2016 guidelines update in estimating LV filling pressure is unknown.METHODS: Echocardiographic and hemodynamic data were obtained from 50 patients undergoing cardiac catheterization for clinical indications. Clinical and echocardiographic findings but not invasive hemodynamics were provided to 4 groups of observers, including experienced echocardiographers and cardiology fellows. Invasively acquired LV filling pressure was the gold standard.RESULTS: In group I of 8 experienced echocardiographers from the guidelines writing committee, sensitivity for elevated LV filling pressure was 92% for all observers, and specificity was 93 +/- 6%. Fleiss kappa-value for the agreement in group I was 0.80. In group II of 4 fellows in training, sensitivity was 91 +/- 2%, and specificity was 95 +/- 2%. Fleiss kappa-value for the agreement in group II was 0.94. In group III of 9 experienced echocardiographers who had not participated in drafting the guidelines, sensitivity was 88 +/- 5%, and specificity was 91 +/- 7%. Fleiss kappa-value for the agreement in group III was 0.76. In group IV of 7 other fellows, sensitivity was 91 +/- 3%, and specificity was 92 +/- 5%. Fleiss kappa-value for the agreement in group IV was 0.89.CONCLUSIONS: There is a good level of agreement and accuracy in the estimation of LV filling pressure using the American Society of Echocardiography/European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging 2016 recommendations update, irrespective of the experience level of the observer. Show less
Garbi, M.; Habib, G.; Plein, S.; Neglia, D.; Kitsiou, A.; Donal, E.; ... ; Lancellotti, P. 2014
