Usefulness of Left Atrial Volume Versus Diameter to Assess Thromboembolic Risk in Mitral Stenosis

In patients with mitral stenosis (MS) in sinus rhythm (SR), guidelines recommend anticoagulation if the left atrium is enlarged based on diameter measurements. We sought to compare the association of left atrial (LA) diameter and LA volume with markers of thromboembolic risk (peak LA appendage emptying velocity [LAAv] and LA spontaneous contrast density) measured during transesophageal echocardiography in 152 patients with moderate to severe MS. High thromboembolic risk was defined by a peak LAAv <25 cm/s and/or dense spontaneous contrast. Mean LA diameter (50 ± 7 mm, 32 to 77) and LA volume (152 ± 70 ml, 67 to 720) were significantly correlated (r = 0.71, p <0.0001), but the relation was curvilinear and the 95% confidence interval increased with LA diameter. In the subset of 80 patients in SR who underwent clinically indicated transesophageal echocardiography, body surface area (BSA)-indexed LA volume but not LA diameter differentiated patients with normal from those with low LAAv (86 ± 17 vs 71 ± 17 ml/m2, p <0.01, and 50 ± 6 vs 48 ± 6 mm, p = 0.13, respectively) and patients with dense spontaneous contrast from those with no or mild spontaneous contrast (81 ± 16 vs 63 ± 15 ml/m2, p <0.01, and 49 ± 6 vs 46 ± 5 mm, p = 0.11, respectively). BSA-indexed LA volume provided the highest area under the curve (0.85) for high thromboembolic risk and LA diameter the lowest (0.65). A BSA-indexed LA volume >60 ml/m2 provided an excellent 90% sensitivity despite 44% specificity, 76% positive predictive value, and 70% negative predictive value. Use of this threshold instead of 50 or 55 mm would have changed the indication for anticoagulation in 51% to 77% of patients. In conclusion, LA volume was more strongly associated with markers of thromboembolic risk than LA diameter, which poorly reflected LA size. Our results support the use of BSA-indexed LA volume to guide the decision for anticoagulation in patients with MS in SR, which may lead to significant change in the management of those patients. We suggest a threshold of 60 ml/m2, which has good sensitivity, albeit with low specificity.