New Paradigms in the Evaluation of Diastolic Function by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Aortic Valvopathy
The noninvasive analysis of left ventricular diastolic function is a challenge in clinical practice. Estimation of the time constant of isovolumetric relaxation – or Tau constant – is the best and most established parameter for ventricular diastolic function analysis. However, this measure is obtained through an invasive assessment and it is very difficult to acquire. In clinical practice, echocardiography is considered a key tool, among all the complementary exams that can be used to evaluate diastolic function, validated in relation to the pressure-volume curves by catheterization, restricting the invasive evaluation to be used in exceptional cases. Thus, echocardiography remains the first-line noninvasive method, providing data on early diastolic dysfunction through indices that reflect relaxation, compliance, and also indirect measurements of ventricular filling pressures.
The latest recommendations for diastolic dysfunction assessment by echocardiography basically include analysis of the left ventricle without structural changes and preserved ejection fraction, as well as a flowchart for cases of left ventricular ejection fraction reduction/structural change. However, the classification of the degree of diastolic dysfunction and its application in the therapeutic management of valvular heart disease remains controversial., Moreover, aortic stenosis may be associated with mitral annulus calcification, which may lead to a reduction of the mitral orifice area, with an increase in early transmitral diastolic velocity (E), while the Doppler lateral mitral annulus velocity (e’) may be reduced due to limitation of the posterior cusp excursion, which may lead to an artificial increase in the E/e’ ratio. In aortic regurgitation, however, the aortic reflux jet may interfere with the mitral flow, which, when significant, can lead to a restrictive ventricular filling pattern; however, the accuracy of E/e’ ratio is questionable.
[…]
Comments are moderated by the editorial team before publication. Discussions should be evidence-based and use scientific language. Conflicts of interest should be declared.