Talk:Diastolic heart failure

Discussion
Leslie Beben chiming in. Study of the degradation of diastole demands a better explanation of this very general term. Diastole is actually the sum of disparate drives in an inverse arrangement to systole. Systole drives blood out of the heart and is readily extrapolated in contemporary mathematical performance as ejection fraction(EF), cardiac output(CO)as well as inexpensive echocardiographic equivalents like end systolic volume (ESV). Stroke work is probably equivalent to electromechanical work out. Systole is posited to be electrically triggered by the sinoatrial mechanism.

Diastolic dysfunction lends itself to an expedient and similarly inexpensive echocardiographically derived measure. Inversion of methods to measure systole readily lends itself to the inversely arranged terms of injection fraction (IF), cardiac input (CI)and volumetric derivation as end diastolic volume (EDV). Suction work is probably equivalent to electromechanical work in. Diastole is posited to be electrically governed by the vagal and spinal accessory nerves.

An ejection fraction of 55% is generally agreed to be excellent. Diastole seems to many to be a passive phase. The mathematical performance of the negected side of the division begs further explanation beyond a passive phase. Diastolic dysfuntion invites scrutiny equal to that given to systolic failure. Chagasic heart failure is suggested as a textbook reference to progressive diastolic heart failure.

Thanks, discussion invited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbeben (talk • contribs) 02:10, October 21, 2007
 * This page is for discussions on how to improve the article, not a forum about the subject itself. Sorry. -- Kesh 02:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The article could be improved by inclusion of well documented time variables such as E:A ratio. Reversal of this time/volume slope across the mitral valve seems mathematically reproducible and agreeable to many authors as an equivalent of advancing diastolic failure of the heart. While time variables have great utility, they should also be linked to existing (encyclopedically verified and technically inexpensive) volumetric data such as Ejection Fraction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbeben (talk • contribs) 02:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
This page covers the same topic as heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and I believe both are synonyms for the same condition --Ben Best:Talk 21:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Heart Failure Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFPEF) is now the preferred term for Diastolic Heart Failure. This term was used in the 2016 European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Guidelines. "Diastolic Heart Failure" was the term used in papers published in the early 2000's Eur Heart J 2016;37:2129–2200. http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/ehj/37/27/2129.full.pdf Heanong (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The correct term is heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.185.155.70 (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, diastolic heart failure is an outdated term. HFpEF is now used and the merging of the two articles will bring clarity of this topic to new readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.57.115 (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The use of Wikipedia is usually by the lay public and not the medical professional. Therefore, it seems more reasonable to merge the HFPEF into the Diastolic Heart Failure as that is what would be the normal search term used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.177.39 (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support the merge in the direction of current use; that is, to Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Its not at all clear to me that the public would understand the term diastolic better that the term ejection fraction, in which case it seems better to use the modern term, of course ensuring that diastolic heart failure is placed early in the lede. Klbrain (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Section Diagnosis - Confusion
In this section I suspect there is confusion by the two terms Grade and Class. Is Grade 1 the same as Class 1? CofE001 11:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenofearth001 (talk • contribs)