Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 29, 2025
Noninvasive Determination of Vortex Formation Time Using Transesophageal Echocardiography During Cardiac Surgery
Published on: November 28, 2018
Intraoperative diastolic function assessed by TEE does not agree with preoperative diastolic function grade in CABG
Reed Harvey1, Vivek Chellappa1, Sean Mofidi1
1Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Objective:
To compare the agreement of the 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines for grading diastolic dysfunction (DD) with the most commonly used intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography (TEE)-based diastolic function grading algorithm in cardiac surgical patients, and to describe the contribution of the echocardiographic variables used in the algorithms to any observed differences.
Design:
Retrospective data analysis.
Setting:
University tertiary medical center.
Participants:
Hundred and one patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) at a single institution from June 2017 to February 2019.
Interventions:
Preoperative transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) diastolic function grade determined by the 2016 American Society of Echocardiography (ASE)/European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) guidelines was compared to intraoperative diastolic function grade obtained by TEE.
Measurements And Main Results:
Incidence of DD on preoperative TTE was only 19.8%, while 62.3% of patients were graded as having DD on the intraoperative TEE exam. There was grade agreement between TTE and TEE in only 47/101 patients (46.5%). The McNemar test showed poor agreement between the two algorithms (OR for disagreement = 15.33, CI = 4.77-49.30; p < 0.0001). Despite the low incidence of DD on preoperative TTE, mean lateral e' values were significantly lower on TTE compared to TEE (7.7 cm/s vs 9.5 cm/s; p = < 0.0001).
Conclusions:
There is strong disagreement between TTE and TEE-based DD grading algorithms. Due to the different echocardiographic variables used in each and the unique clinical settings in which they are applied, they produce fundamentally different results.
