P2443Diagnostic performance of 2d-echocardiography versus cardiac catheterization in assessing left ventricular end-diastolic pressure: a meta-analysis

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Heart failure (HF) is a major public health problem that affects 23 million people worldwide. The global incidence and prevalence rates of HF are approaching epidemiologic proportions, as evidenced by the relentless increase in the number of HF hospitalizations, the growing number of HF deaths, and the spiraling costs associated with the care of HF patients. Its diagnosis may be challenging because symptoms are nonspecific. Determination of left ventricular filling pressure (LVFP) is important to interpret equivocal symptoms so as to optimize therapy. Catheterization remains to be the gold standard; however, it is not practical to submit many patients with clinical suspicion of HF to invasive studies. Although echocardiographic indices are recommended by recent guidelines (Level IIIB), studies have shown conflicting results on its diagnostic performance. Purpose This study aims to identify the diagnostic performance of 2D-echocardiography compared with cardiac catheterization in assessing LV end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) among adult patients with suspected HF using a meta-analysis of observational studies. Methods Eight studies with a total of 1,153 patients with suspected HF who underwent simultaneous evaluation of echocardiographic estimates of LVFP and invasive measurement of LVEDP by cardiac catheterization were included in the final analysis after extensive searching. Review Manager 5.3 was used to the assess the sensitivity and specificity of E/e' lateral, septal and average, and left atrial volume index (LAVI). Meta-Disc was applied to obtain pooled estimates, receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) and area under curve (AUC) using a 95% confidence interval. Results Overall, pooled estimates for E/e' septal >15, E/e' lateral >12, E/e' average >13 and LAVI >34 have significant diagnostic values with pooled sensitivity of 62% (95% CI 0.54 to 0.69), 39% (95% CI 0.33 to 0.45), 81% (95% CI 0.73 to 0.87) and 53% (95% CI 0.46 to 0.61) respectively; pooled specificity of 59% (95% CI 0.53 to 0.65), 87% (95% CI 0.81 to 0.91), 72% (95% CI 0.65 to 0.78) and 69% (95% CI 0.57 to 0.79) respectively; and pooled AUC of 0.624, 0.8486, 0.8190 and 0.69 respectively. Conclusion 2D echocardiography have significant diagnostic performance compared with cardiac catheterization in assessing LVEDP among adults with suspected HF. Guidelines may be updated using this meta-analysis.