[Does diastolic heart failure exist?].

This paper reviews the concepts of systolic function, diastolic function, heart failure, diastolic dysfunction, and diastolic heart failure. We refer to the historic evolution of the concept of heart failure and the origin of the term diastolic heart failure. Based on the current concepts of the physiology of the heart and its pathophysiology, we discuss the inappropriateness of the term and to the confusion it has generated in clinical practice, treatment, and prognosis, as well as in numerous research papers (of which some examples are given) when terming as "heart failure" the diastolic dysfunction and using both terms indistinctively. We conclude that an increasing need has arisen, ever more imperative, to identify clearly the concepts of heart failure and diastolic dysfunction, emphasizing on their differences to recognize them as distinct clinical entities with their own personality and, hence, having different prognosis and treatment. This would be of great help to achieve more accuracy in the clinical guidelines, standards, and consensus, especially regarding treatment. Besides it would be useful to avoid, inconsistencies in the design of research, which appear in some of the publications just by the lack of a clear meaning of the terms. Finally, at present we have the necessary elements to conclude that the terms "diastolic heart failure" and "cardiac failure with preserved systolic function" are inexact, poorly gauged, and far away from the actual problem they try to define. Therefore, they should be substituted by the concept of Diastolic Dysfunction, which defines clearly the pathophysiology of the functional alteration, without having to state that "the heart is failing".