Objectives: This study proposes a physiologic assessment of left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (LVOTO) that accommodates changes in systolic flow and accounts for the dynamic neo-left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT).
Background: Patients considered for transcatheter mitral valve replacement trials often screen-fail because of the perceived risk of LVOTO. In the Intrepid Global Pilot Study, assumed risk of LVOTO was based on computed tomography estimates of the neo-LVOT area computed at end-systole. However, this may overestimate actual risk.
Methods: Retrospective analyses were performed for screen-failed patients for potential LVOTO (n = 33) and treated patients (n = 29) with available dynamic computed tomography. A multiphase assessment of the neo-LVOT area was performed and represented as: 1) multiphase average; and 2) early systolic value. Prospective evaluation was performed in 9 patients approved for enrollment with multiphase and early systole methods that would have previously screen-failed with the end-systolic approach.
Results: Of 166 patients screened for possible inclusion; 32 were screen-failed for nonanatomical reasons. Screen failure for assumed LVOTO risk occurred in 37 of 134 (27.6%) patients. Retrospective analysis indicated a potential enrollment increase of 11 of 33 (33.3%) and 18 of 33 (54.5%) patients using multiphase and early systolic assessment methods. In the prospective cohort, there were no clinical observations of LVOTO 30 days post-procedure, despite assumed risk based on end-systolic estimates.
Conclusions: Multiphase, and specifically early systolic, assessment of the neo-LVOT may better determine risk of LVOTO with transcatheter mitral valve replacement compared with end-systolic estimates. This novel approach has the potential to significantly increase patient eligibility, with over one-half of patients previously screen-failed now eligible for treatment.
Keywords: LVOT; TMVR; left ventricular outflow tract obstruction; mitral valve; neo-LVOT.
Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.