The 2016 ASE/EACVI recommendations may be able to more accurately identify patients at risk for diastolic dysfunction in living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of diastolic dysfunction between the 2016 American Society of Echocardiography (ASE)/European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging and 2009 ASE/European Association of Echocardiography recommendations in patients undergoing living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 312 adult patients who underwent LDLT at our hospital from January 2010 to December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Exclusion criteria were systolic dysfunction, arrhythmia, myocardial ischemia, and mitral or aortic valvular insufficiency. RESULTS: The study population was largely male (68.3%), and the median age was 54 (49–59) years. The median model for end-stage liver disease score was 12 (6–22) points. A predominant difference in the prevalence rates of diastolic dysfunction was observed between the two recommendations. The prevalence rates of diastolic dysfunction and indeterminate diastolic function were lower according to the 2016 recommendations than the 2009 recommendations. The level of concordance between the two recommendations was poor. The proportion of patients with a high brain natriuretic peptide level (> 100 pg/mL) decreased significantly during surgery in the normal and indeterminate groups according to the 2009 recommendations; however, only the normal group showed an intraoperative decrease in the proportion according to the 2016 recommendations. Patients with diastolic dysfunction showed a poorer overall-survival rate than those with normal function according to both recommendations. However, there was a difference in the survival rate in the indeterminate group between the two recommendations. A significant difference in patient survival rate was observed between the dysfunction and indeterminate groups according to the 2009 recommendations; however, the difference was not significant in the 2016 recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The 2016 classification may be better able to identify patients with a risk for diastolic dysfunction. Particularly, patients in the 2016 indeterminate group seemed to require a cardiac diastolic functional evaluation more frequently during and after surgery than those in the 2009 indeterminate group.