ArticleEcho research and practice2026
Invasive validation of BSE-2024 vs. BSE-2013 using LVEDP and LV pre-A pressure in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization: a multicenter study with a complementary algorithm.
Article in Echo research and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo invasively validate the 2024 and 2013 British Society of Echocardiography (BSE) recommendations for diastolic function (DF) and left ventricular filling pressure (LVFP) detection using LV end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) ≥ 16 mmHg and LV pre-A > 15 mmHg in patients undergoing left heart catheterization (LHC) and to propose a complementary algorithm to improve diagnostic performance.
methodsIn this prospective multicenter study, 716 patients in sinus rhythm underwent echocardiography within 120 min before clinically indicated LHC (401 derivations and 315 temporally independent validation cohort). Patients with conditions that could interfere with the reliability of the algorithms were excluded. Both guidelines and proposed algorithms estimated DF and LVFP. The diagnostic classifications were compared with invasively-measured LVEDP and LV pre-A pressure.
resultsBSE-2024 classified patients as (0.7%) indeterminate, (49.1%) normal and (50.1%) impaired DF, compared with (60.6%), (14.2%) and (25.2%), respectively, using BSE-2013. After excluding indeterminate cases, area under the curve (AUC) for detecting LVFP was comparable (e.g. for LVEDP, BSE-2024: 0.602 vs. BSE-2013: 0.630, P = 0.459). Updated guidelines achieved higher specificity for LVEDP (93.5% vs. 81.9%) but substantially lower sensitivity (27.8% vs. 44.2%), similar to that for LV pre-A (specificity: 92.1% vs. 79.4% and sensitivity 38.2% vs. 50.8%). BSE-2024 reclassified (82.3%) of indeterminate cases and (60.8%) of elevated LVFP under BSE-2013 as normal, with no significant change in overall reclassification (NRI: -0.056, P = 0.41; IDI: -0.056, P = 0.40). The proposed algorithm performance results were {LVEDP: (78.8%) sensitivity and (79.8%) specificity, while LV pre-A: (85.5%) sensitivity and (67.3%) specificity}. The independent validation cohort confirmed the robustness and reproducibility of the complementary algorithm {LVEDP: (88.3%) sensitivity and (87.9%) specificity and LV pre-A: (95.7%) sensitivity and (64.3%) specificity}.
conclusionsBSE-2024 markedly reduced indeterminate classifications but showed reduced sensitivity and modest diagnostic discrimination against invasive reference standards. Comparisons should be interpreted cautiously because BSE-2013 excludes many indeterminate cases from performance analyses, whereas BSE-2024 retains nearly all patients. The complementary algorithm provided a more balanced diagnostic profile and warrants further external validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.