Evaluation of Patients for Percutaneous Edge-to-edge Mitral Valve Repair: Comparison of Cardiac Computed Tomography Angiography With Transesophageal Echocardiography.

Purpose: We sought to compare parameters derived from cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) with those from transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) for the evaluation of patients with severe mitral regurgitation (MR) before percutaneous edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (PE2E). TEE is the mainstay for PE2E, although it has specific limitations. CCTA enables measurements in any arbitrary plane with high spatial resolution and offers good calcium visibility.
Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent TEE and CCTA before scheduled PE2E at 2 medical centers were included in this retrospective analysis. Quantitative parameters relevant for PE2E were obtained from TEE and CCTA in a blinded manner and the intrareviewer variability was assessed.
Results: All 30 patients (15 female, 76±10 y) had secondary MR attributable to ischemic (60%) or nonischemic cardiomyopathy (40%). On comparing parameters from TEE and CCTA, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter was 60±11 versus 64±11 mm (r=0.90), intercommissural mitral annulus was 35±5 versus 35±5 mm (r=0.88), long-axis annulus was 33±5 versus 33±5 mm (r=0.74), the distance between the fossa ovalis and the leaflet coaptation was 42±5 versus 41±5 mm (r=0.81), the anterior mitral leaflet was 21±6 versus 20±7 mm (r=0.81), the posterior mitral leaflet was 13±2 versus 13±2 mm (r=0.91), and the median mitral calcification was 1 (interquartile range: 0 to 2) versus 0 (interquartile range: 0 to 1; r=0.53), respectively. Intrareviewer agreement was good and excellent for continuous and categorical variables, respectively.
Conclusions: Our data suggest that evaluation of the mitral valve apparatus with CCTA in patients considered for PE2E is feasible, correlates well with TEE, and offers improved calcium visibility. In selected cases, additional information from CCTA may be helpful for achieving optimal interventional results.
Competing Interests: M.R. received lecture fees from Abbott. W-.K.K. received proctor/speaker fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Meril. H.M. received lecture fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.
(Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)