Key result
Volumetric quantitation predicts mortality or transplant in FMR, whereas PISA does not.
Why the study?
Both volumetric and PISA methods enable calculation of EOA and Rvol in functional mitral regurgitation, but their comparative clinical and prognostic value was unclear.
Does volumetric quantitation of functional mitral regurgitation better predict all-cause mortality or heart transplantation compared to PISA quantitation in patients with LVEF <35%?
Observational (n=177)
Does volumetric quantitation of functional mitral regurgitation better predict all-cause mortality or heart transplantation compared to PISA quantitation in patients with LVEF <35%?
p-value: p=0.003 and 0.004
Volumetric quantitation of functional mitral regurgitation provides better prognostic value for mortality or heart transplantation than the PISA method in patients with reduced ejection fraction.
Volumetric EOA/Rvol thresholds may improve risk stratification in low-EF FMR; leaves open whether they should supplant PISA in practice or guidelines.
Background Effective orifice area (EOA) ≥0.2 cm 2 or regurgitant volume (Rvol) ≥30 mL predicts prognostic significance in functional mitral regurgitation (FMR). Both volumetric and proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) methods enable calculation of these metrics. To determine their clinical value, we compared EOA and Rvol derived by volumetric and PISA quantitation upon outcome of patients with FMR. Methods and Results We examined the outcome of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <35% and moderate to severe FMR. All had a complete echocardiogram including EOA and Rvol by both standard PISA and volumetric quantitation using total stroke volume calculated by left ventricular end‐diastolic volume×left ventricular ejection fraction and forward flow by Doppler method: EOA=Rvol/mitral regurgitation velocity time integral. Primary outcome was all‐cause mortality or heart transplantation. We examined 177 patients: mean left ventricular ejection fraction 25.2% and 34.5% with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Echo measurements were greater by PISA than volumetric quantitation: EOA (0.18 versus 0.11 cm 2 ), Rvol (24.7 versus 16.9 mL), and regurgitant fraction (61 versus 37 %) respectively (all P value <0.001). During 3.6±2.3 years’ follow‐up, patients with EOA ≥0.2 cm 2 or Rvol ≥30 mL had a worse outcome than those with EOA <0.2 cm 2 or Rvol <30 mL only by volumetric (log rank P =0.003 and 0.004) but not PISA quantitation (log rank P =0.984 and 0.544), respectively. Conclusions Volumetric and PISA methods yield different measurements of EOA and Rvol in FMR; volumetric values exhibit greater prognostic significance. The echo method of quantifying FMR may affect the management of this disorder.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Igata et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Functional mitral regurgitation (n=177). Volumetric quantitation vs. Proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) quantitation was evaluated on All-cause mortality or heart transplantation (p=0.003 and 0.004). Volumetric quantitation of effective orifice area ≥0.2 cm2 or regurgitant volume ≥30 mL predicted worse outcomes in FMR (log rank P=0.003 and 0.004), whereas PISA quantitation did not.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: