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

Backgound: Accurate assessment of diastolic function and left ventricular (LV) filling pressure is central to heart failure diagnosis and risk stratification. Contemporary guideline algorithms rely on complex parameters that are not consistently available in routine clinical practice. Objective: To compare the diagnostic and prognostic performance of the 2016 American Society of Echocardiography/European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (ASE/EACVI) and 2025 ASE guidelines with a deep learning model based on routinely acquired echocardiographic variables. Methods: This study evaluated the guideline-based algorithms and a deep learning model in participants from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort (n=5450) for prognostication and two invasive hemodynamic validation cohorts from the United States (n=83) and Japan (n=130) for detection of elevated left ventricular filling pressure. Results: In the ARIC cohort, the deep learning model demonstrated superior prognostic performance compared with the 2016 and 2025 guidelines (C-index: 0.676 vs. 0.638 and 0.602, respectively; both p<0.001). Similar findings were observed among participants with preserved ejection fraction (C-index: 0.660 vs. 0.628 and 0.590; both p<0.001), with improved performance compared with the H2FPEF score (C-index: 0.660 vs. 0.607; p<0.001). In the US hemodynamic validation cohort, the deep learning model showed higher diagnostic performance than the 2025 guidelines (AUC: 0.879 vs. 0.822; p=0.041) and similar performance compared with the 2016 guidelines (AUC: 0.879 vs. 0.812; p=0.138). In the Japanese hemodynamic validation cohort, the deep learning model outperformed both guidelines (AUC: 0.816 vs. 0.634 and 0.694; both p<0.05). Conclusions: A deep learning model leveraging routinely available echocardiographic parameters demonstrated improved diagnostic and prognostic performance compared with contemporary guideline-based approaches, potentially offering a scalable alternative for assessing diastolic function and left ventricular filling pressures.