Confie no Ecocardiograma mas não confie no diagnóstico de HFpEF


In one cohort with 64% prevalence of HFpEF determined by invasive measurements, the univariable sensitivity of septal e′ velocity <7 cm/s to diagnose HFpEF, without adjusting for age or other variables, was 46%, while its specificity was 76%.5 The sensitivity and specificity of an E/e′ ratio >9 were 78% and 59%, compared with 46% and 86% for E/e′ >13. The sensitivity and specificity of LA volume index >30 mL/m2 were about 70%. Measurements of LV mass had low sensitivity (26%) for HFpEF but high specificity (86%) if LVH was present. PAP >35 mmHg [derived from tricuspid regurgitation (TR) velocity] was 46% sensitive and 86% specific for HFpEF,5 which makes it an important diagnostic criterion. The utility of GLS <16% was moderate (sensitivity 62% and specificity 56%5).2


Ao repouso, nada é sensível e específico o suficiente.

Com pacientes acima de 75 anos, principalmente, muito cuidado ao usar o ecocardiograma de repouso para a diagnóstico de HFpEF

Deixe uma resposta