Leaning Too Much on the Power of Proximal Isovelocity Surface Area? Don't Forget the Volumetric Method for Quantifying Functional Mitral Regurgitation
2021; Wiley; Volume: 10; Issue: 11 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1161/jaha.121.021914
ISSN2047-9980
Autores Tópico(s)Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
ResumoHomeJournal of the American Heart AssociationVol. 10, No. 11Leaning Too Much on the Power of Proximal Isovelocity Surface Area? Don't Forget the Volumetric Method for Quantifying Functional Mitral Regurgitation Open AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyRedditDiggEmail Jump toOpen AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBLeaning Too Much on the Power of Proximal Isovelocity Surface Area? Don't Forget the Volumetric Method for Quantifying Functional Mitral Regurgitation Ray Hu, MD and Tiffany Chen, MD Ray HuRay Hu Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, , Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, , Philadelphia, , PA and Tiffany ChenTiffany Chen * Correspondence to: Tiffany Chen, MD, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman Center of Advanced Medicine, 11‐146 South Pavilion, 3400 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104. E‐mail: E-mail Address: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3768-3143 Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, , Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, , Philadelphia, , PA Originally published22 May 2021https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.121.021914Journal of the American Heart Association. 2021;10:e021914This article is a commentary on the followingOptimal Quantification of Functional Mitral Regurgitation: Comparison of Volumetric and Proximal Isovelocity Surface Area Methods to Predict OutcomeOther version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: May 22, 2021: Ahead of Print The prognostic value of functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) is well established,1 and the discordant findings of the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation)2 and the Mitra‐FR (Multicenter Study of Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair With MitraClip Device in Patients With Severe Secondary Mitral Regurgitation) studies3 have generated significant interest in refining the echocardiographic assessment of FMR to reconcile the 2 studies4, 5 and optimize selection of patients undergoing FMR who may benefit from transcatheter edge‐to‐edge mitral valve repair.The American Society of Echocardiography and the European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend an integrated approach to grading the severity of mitral regurgitation (MR), which incorporates multiple semiquantitative and quantitative parameters, including estimated regurgitant orifice area (EROA), regurgitant volume (RVol), and regurgitant fraction (RF). EROA and RVol are most commonly derived by the proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) method, which is prone to inaccuracy because of geometric assumptions of a circular orifice area and spherical PISA shell that are often invalid in FMR.6, 7 Furthermore, the PISA method does not account for the dynamic nature of FMR, which can have substantial temporal variability. In contrast, the volumetric method uses left ventricular (LV) volume measurements to calculate total stroke volume and the product of the LV outflow tract area and velocity time integral for forward stroke volume. Subsequently, the RVol is calculated as the difference between the total and forward stroke volumes, and the EROA is the quotient of the RVol and mitral inflow velocity time integral. Pitfalls of the volumetric method include underestimation of LV volumes by echocardiography and geometric assumption of the LV outflow tract as a circular area.In this issue of the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA), Igata et al compared the volumetric method with PISA for FMR quantification in a retrospective cohort of 177 patients with moderate to severe FMR of both ischemic and nonischemic cause with a mean follow‐up of 3.7 years. The authors found that the PISA method produced larger values of EROA (0.18 versus 0.11 cm2), RVol (24.7 versus 16.9 mL), and RF (61% versus 37%) than the volumetric method.8 Interestingly, the quantitative measurements of MR were modest despite selecting for patients with overall moderate to severe MR. In terms of prognostic value of the 2 methods, a cutoff of EROA ≥0.2 cm2 or RVol ≥30 mL was associated with increased risk of death or heart transplant only when measured by the volumetric method but not by PISA.8The results of the study by Igata et al add to the body of evidence highlighting the deficiencies of PISA in quantifying FMR.6, 9, 10 Despite the absence of a "gold standard" for comparison, several clues support the possibility of overestimation of FMR with PISA. In the current study, PISA produced nonphysiologic regurgitant volumes in >10% of patients. Interestingly, a similar observation in an analysis of the COAPT study showed the average RF exceeded 100%, although this may also be attributable to underestimation of LV volumes.11 Compared with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, which may be more reproducible for volumetric quantification of valvular regurgitation,12 echocardiography seems to systematically overestimate severity by PISA10 but not necessarily with the volumetric method.13 On the other hand, PISA could be expected to underestimate FMR because of the characteristic elliptical or crescentic regurgitant orifice,7 although this is not yet well validated.Thus, the quantitative thresholds for MR severity should be considered in the context of these differences in EROA and RVol depending on method for estimation, particularly for FMR. By American Society of Echocardiography guidelines, severe MR is defined as EROA ≥0.4 cm2, RVol ≥60 mL, or RF ≥50%,7 regardless of method or cause. On the basis of the potential prognostic value of a lower threshold (EROA ≥0.2 cm2 or RVol ≥30 mL) for FMR1 that has not been replicated in other studies,14 the European guidelines have adopted this lower threshold for severe FMR. Regardless, using cutoff values based on the EROA or RVol alone to grade MR may fail to capture its complexity given the degree of uncertainty in the derivation of these individual parameters.To complicate matters further, EROA and RVol are influenced by adverse LV remodeling that serves as the catalyst for FMR, as well as hemodynamic loading conditions. The significance of a given EROA depends on the LV end‐diastolic volume, just as the significance of a given RVol depends on the total stroke volume generated. Therefore, regurgitant fraction ≥50%, which normalizes the RVol to total stroke volume, is generally regarded as perhaps the best quantitative metric of severity in FMR.11, 15, 16 In the study by Igata et al, outcomes were unfortunately not compared according to RF, which could have provided further insight into the differences between the 2 quantification methods (PISA based versus volumetric).In terms of prognostic value, Igata et al found that the volumetric method correlated with clinical outcomes, whereas the PISA method did not. This result could simply reflect overestimation of FMR by PISA and thus inclusion of lower‐risk patients that satisfied the defined EROA and RVol thresholds. However, it is also possible that the volumetric method holds a more direct link to markers of LV remodeling and thus better risk‐stratified patients, irrespective of whether it holds superior accuracy for MR quantification. Separating the contribution of MR severity from the degree of cardiac remodeling in determining prognosis in FMR remains a challenge. However, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging may provide further insight into this conundrum, given its capability for more accurate LV volumetric assessment, MR quantification, and myocardial tissue characterization that could hold additional prognostic value.17In the modern era of transcatheter interventions, the indication for transcatheter edge‐to‐edge mitral valve repair has expanded to selected patients with heart failure with FMR, yet uncertainty persists with regard to optimal patient selection and timing of intervention. At the crux of the uncertainty is the fact that the optimal approach to quantify FMR and evaluate its deleterious impact on the cascade of LV remodeling remains elusive. Recent efforts to stratify patients by the "proportionality" of MR relative to the degree of LV remodeling, by indexing EROA or RVol to the LV end‐diastolic volume, have not convincingly demonstrated a difference in transcatheter edge‐to‐edge mitral valve repair outcomes between so‐called "MR proportionate" and "MR disproportionate" groups.4, 5, 18, 19, 20 The conceptual framework of MR proportionality seems logical, but the ways in which we quantitate both FMR severity and LV remodeling are imperfect. There is also probably more to the equation than MR proportionality, and the importance of other factors, such as LV myocardial fibrosis, pulmonary vascular remodeling, right ventricular function, and anatomic considerations, warrants further study.In summary, the current study by Igata et al introduces a wrinkle into the fabric of our understanding of FMR quantification by highlighting potential pitfalls of FMR quantification by PISA and reminds us that quantitative echocardiographic parameters are but estimates dependent on method of derivation. Comprehensive echocardiographic assessment of MR leans not only on PISA and requires an integrative, multiparametric approach. Furthermore, quantitative parameters could have variable prognostic significance and capture limited snapshots of the complex interaction between LV remodeling and hemodynamic effects of FMR. Future clinical trials of transcatheter edge‐to‐edge mitral valve repair and other therapies for FMR should harness the opportunity to incorporate more quantitative echocardiographic parameters, including volumetric quantification, to refine our understanding of not only FMR assessment but also the role for therapeutic intervention. Advanced imaging techniques with 3‐dimensional echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging may provide additional valuable insight into the phenotyping of FMR, beyond conventional 2‐dimensional echocardiography, and should be explored in future prospective clinical trials.DisclosuresNone.Footnotes* Correspondence to: Tiffany Chen, MD, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman Center of Advanced Medicine, 11‐146 South Pavilion, 3400 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104. E‐mail: tiffany.[email protected]upenn.eduThe opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.For Disclosures, see page 3.See Article by Igata et al.References1 Rossi A, Dini FL, Faggiano P, Agricola E, Cicoira M, Frattini S, Simioniuc A, Gullace M, Ghio S, Enriquez‐Sarano M, et al. Independent prognostic value of functional mitral regurgitation in patients with heart failure: a quantitative analysis of 1256 patients with ischaemic and non‐ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy. Heart. 2011; 97:1675–1680. DOI: 10.1136/hrt.2011.225789.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2 Stone GW, Lindenfeld J, Abraham WT, Kar S, Lim DS, Mishell JM, Whisenant B, Grayburn PA, Rinaldi M, Kapadia SR, et al. Transcatheter mitral‐valve repair in patients with heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:2307–2318. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1806640.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3 Obadia J‐F, Messika‐Zeitoun D, Leurent G, Iung B, Bonnet G, Piriou N, Lefèvre T, Piot C, Rouleau F, Carrié D, et al. Percutaneous repair or medical treatment for secondary mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:2297–2306. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1805374.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4 Grayburn PA, Sannino A, Packer M. Proportionate and disproportionate functional mitral regurgitation: a new conceptual framework that reconciles the results of the MITRA‐FR and COAPT trials. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019; 12:353–362. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.11.006.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5 Gaasch WH, Aurigemma GP, Meyer TE. An appraisal of the association of clinical outcomes with the severity of regurgitant volume relative to end‐diastolic volume in patients with secondary mitral regurgitation. JAMA Cardiol. 2020; 5:476–481. DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.5980.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6 Matsumura Y, Fukuda S, Tran H, Greenberg NL, Agler DA, Wada N, Toyono M, Thomas JD, Shiota T. Geometry of the proximal isovelocity surface area in mitral regurgitation by 3‐dimensional color Doppler echocardiography: difference between functional mitral regurgitation and prolapse regurgitation. Am Heart J. 2008; 155:231–238. DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2007.09.002.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7 Zoghbi WA, Adams D, Bonow RO, Enriquez‐Sarano M, Foster E, Grayburn PA, Hahn RT, Han Y, Hung J, Lang RM, et al. Recommendations for noninvasive evaluation of native valvular regurgitation: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography developed in collaboration with the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2017; 30:303–371. DOI: 10.1016/j.echo.2017.01.007.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8 Igata S, Cotter BR, Hang CT, Morikawa N, Strachan M, Raisinghani A, Blanchard DG, DeMaria AN. Optimal quantification of functional mitral regurgitation: comparison of volumetric and proximal isovelocity surface area methods to predict outcome. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021; 10:e018553. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.018553.LinkGoogle Scholar9 Uretsky S, Aldaia L, Marcoff L, Koulogiannis K, Hiramatsu S, Argulian E, Rosenthal M, Gillam LD, Wolff SD. The effect of systolic variation of mitral regurgitation on discordance between noninvasive imaging modalities. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019; 12:2431–2442.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10 Uretsky S, Gillam L, Lang R, Chaudhry FA, Argulian E, Supariwala A, Gurram S, Jain K, Subero M, Jang JJ, et al. Discordance between echocardiography and MRI in the assessment of mitral regurgitation severity: a prospective multicenter trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65:1078–1088. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.12.047.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11 Hagendorff A, Doenst T, Falk V. Echocardiographic assessment of functional mitral regurgitation: opening Pandora's box?ESC Heart Fail. 2019; 6:678–685. DOI: 10.1002/ehf2.12491.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12 Cawley PJ, Hamilton‐Craig C, Owens DS, Krieger EV, Strugnell WE, Mitsumori L, D'Jang CL, Schwaegler RG, Nguyen KQ, Nguyen B, et al. Prospective comparison of valve regurgitation quantitation by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and transthoracic echocardiography. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013; 6:48–57. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.112.975623.LinkGoogle Scholar13 Lopez‐Mattei JC, Ibrahim H, Shaikh KA, Little SH, Shah DJ, Maragiannis D, Zoghbi WA. Comparative assessment of mitral regurgitation severity by transthoracic echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance using an integrative and quantitative approach. Am J Cardiol. 2016; 117:264–270. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.10.045.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14 Patel JB, Borgeson DD, Barnes ME, Rihal CS, Daly RC, Redfield MM. Mitral regurgitation in patients with advanced systolic heart failure. J Card Fail. 2004; 10:285–291. DOI: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2003.12.006.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15 Gillam LD. Reconciling COAPT and Mitra‐FR results based on mitral regurgitation severity and left ventricular size: it's not so simple. JAMA Cardiol. 2021; 6:376–378. DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.7214.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16 Hahn RT. Disproportionate emphasis on proportionate mitral regurgitation‐are there better measures of regurgitant severity?JAMA Cardiol. 2020; 5:377–379. DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.6235.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17 Tayal B, Debs D, Nabi F, Malahfji M, Little SH, Reardon M, Zoghbi W, Kleiman N, Shah DJ. Impact of myocardial scar on prognostic implication of secondary mitral regurgitation in heart failure. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2021; 14:812–822. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2020.11.004.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar18 Lindenfeld J, Abraham WT, Grayburn PA, Kar S, Asch FM, Lim DS, Nie H, Singhal P, Sundareswaran KS, Weissman NJ, et al. Association of effective regurgitation orifice area to left ventricular end‐diastolic volume ratio with transcatheter mitral valve repair outcomes: a secondary analysis of the COAPT trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2021; 6:427–436. DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.7200.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar19 Orban M, Karam N, Lubos E, Kalbacher D, Braun D, Deseive S, Neuss M, Butter C, Praz F, Kassar M, et al. Impact of proportionality of secondary mitral regurgitation on outcome after transcatheter mitral valve repair. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2021; 14:715–725. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2020.05.042.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar20 Namazi F, van der Bijl P, Fortuni F, Mertens BJA, Kamperidis V, van Wijngaarden SE, Stone GW, Narula J, Ajmone Marsan N, Vahanian A, et al. Regurgitant volume/left ventricular end‐diastolic volume ratio: prognostic value in patients with secondary mitral regurgitation. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2021; 14:730–739. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2020.06.032.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesOptimal Quantification of Functional Mitral Regurgitation: Comparison of Volumetric and Proximal Isovelocity Surface Area Methods to Predict OutcomeSachiyo Igata, et al. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2021;10 June 1, 2021Vol 10, Issue 11Article InformationMetrics Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley BlackwellThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.121.021914PMID: 34027679 Originally publishedMay 22, 2021 Keywordsfunctional mitral regurgitationEditorialsechocardiographypercutaneous mitral valve repairdilated cardiomyopathymitral regurgitationPDF download SubjectsCatheter-Based Coronary and Valvular InterventionsEchocardiographyValvular Heart Disease
Referência(s)