A novel mitral stenosis assessment using projected transmitral gradient improves the diagnostic and prognostic yields of doppler-based gradient

Background Transmitral gradient (TMG) is highly dependent on hemodynamic state, leading to discordance between TMG and mitral valve area (MVA). The effect of heart rate (HR) and stroke volume (SV) on TMG among patients with mitral stenosis (MS) is poorly understood. Purposes We aimed to (1) develop a formula for projected TMG (proTMG) for assessment of MS severity under varying hemodynamics; (2) assess the prognostic value of proTMG in patients with MS. Methods All patients evaluated for suspected MS without ≥moderate other valve disorder at our tertiary center between 2001 and 2017 were analyzed. Projected TMG is the expected gradient under normal flow (SV 80–94 ml and HR 60–79 bpm), and was modeled based on the observed impact of HR and SV on TMG by multiple regression analysis. The data were randomly split (2:1) into training and testing sets. The improvement in agreement between MVA and proTMG was evaluated. Composite cardiac events including all-cause death and mitral valve interventions were compared according to TMG grade using TMG and proTMG. Severe and moderate MS were defined as MVA ≤1.5 cm2 and 1.5–2.0 cm2 respectively, by the continuity equation. MVA ≤1.0 cm2 was considered as very severe MS. Results Of 4973 patients with suspected MS (age 73±12 years, 33% male), severe MS was present in 437 (9%, including 98 with very severe MS) and moderate MS in 934 (19%). In 838 patients with normal HR and SV, very severe, severe and moderate MS corresponded to TMG ≥12 mmHg, ≥6 mmHg and 4–6 mmHg, respectively. In the training set (n=3315), the median [interquartile range] of HR and SV were 70 [61–80] bpm and 97 [83–113] mL in men (n=1120), and 72 [63–82] bpm and 84 [71–97] mL in women (n=2195), respectively. The impact of HR and SV on TMG for men and women were 0.07 and 0.08 mmHg per 1 bpm increase in HR (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06–0.07 and 0.07–0.08), and 0.03 and 0.05 mmHg per 1 mL increase in SV (95% CI 0.03–0.03 and 0.04–0.05), respectively. Therefore, the final formula to calculate proTMG was: proTMG=TMG-0.07(HR-70)-0.03(SV-97) in men and proTMG=TMG-0.08(HR-72)-0.05(SV-84) in women. In the testing set (n=1658), the proTMG (kappa=0.63, 95% CI 0.60–0.66) had better agreement with MS severity by MVA than TMG (kappa=0.28, 95% CI 0.24–0.32). To explore the prevalence of patients reclassified using proTMG, in 98 with TMG ≥12 mmHg, proTMG remained ≥6 mmHg. Of 657 with TMG 6–12 mmHg, proTMG remained ≥6 mmHg in 356 (54%), and decreased to Conclusion We propose a novel concept of projected TMG defined as the expected transmitral gradient at normal HR and SV levels. This improved the diagnostic yield of Doppler TMG measurements for MS severity assessment and identified a low-risk subset of patients with elevated TMG due to high HR or SV. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None