Comparison of the Expert Guidelines With Artificial Intelligence-Driven Echocardiographic Assessment of Diastolic

Insights

A new deep learning model shows superior accuracy in assessing heart failure diastolic function and left ventricular filling pressures compared to current guidelines. This AI approach uses routine echocardiograms, offering a more accessible and effective tool for diagnosis and risk stratification.

Area of Science:

  • Cardiology
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Medical Imaging

Background:

  • Accurate assessment of diastolic function and left ventricular (LV) filling pressure is crucial for heart failure diagnosis and risk stratification.
  • Current guideline algorithms utilize complex parameters often unavailable in routine clinical practice, hindering consistent application.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the diagnostic and prognostic performance of the 2016 and 2025 American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) guidelines with a deep learning (DL) model.
  • The DL model was developed using routinely acquired echocardiographic variables.

Main Methods:

  • The study evaluated guideline-based algorithms and a DL model in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort (n=5450) for prognostication.
  • Invasive hemodynamic validation was performed in cohorts from the US (n=83) and Japan (n=130) to assess the detection of elevated LV filling pressure.

Main Results:

  • The DL model demonstrated superior prognostic performance in the ARIC cohort compared to both 2016 and 2025 ASE guidelines (C-index: 0.676 vs. 0.638 and 0.602, respectively; p<0.001).
  • In diagnostic validation, the DL model showed higher performance than the 2025 guidelines in the US cohort (AUC: 0.879 vs. 0.822; p=0.041) and outperformed both guidelines in the Japanese cohort (AUC: 0.816 vs. 0.634 and 0.694; p<0.05).

Conclusions:

  • A deep learning model utilizing routinely available echocardiographic parameters significantly improved diagnostic and prognostic performance.
  • This AI-driven approach offers a scalable and potentially more accessible alternative for assessing diastolic function and LV filling pressures compared to current guideline-based methods.
Abstract