Aims The aim of this article is to examine how the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) and the Ameri-can Society of Echocardiography (ASE) recommendations on the classification of diastolic dysfunction (DDF) are inter-preted in the scientific community and to explore how variations in the DDF definition affect the reported prevalence. Methods and results A systematic review of studies citing the EACVI/ASE consensus document ‘Recommendations for the evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function by echocardiography ’ was performed. The definition of DDF used in each study was re-corded. Subsequently, several possible interpretations of the EACVI/ASE classification scheme were used to obtain DDF prevalence in a community-based sample (n 714). In the systematic review, 60 studies were included. In 13 stud-ies, no specification of DDF definition was presented, a one-level classification tree was used in 13, a two-level classi-fication tree in 18, and in the remaining 16 studies, a DDF definition was presented but no grading of DDF was performed. In 17 studies, the DDF definition relied solely on early diastolic tissue velocity and/or left atrial size. In eight of these studies, a single parameter was used, in two studies the logical operator AND was used to combine two o
Is data on this page outdated, violates copyrights or anything else? Report the problem now and we will take corresponding actions after reviewing your request.