medigraphic.com

2005, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Arch Cardiol Mex 2005; 75 (4)

Diagnosis of complex congenital heart disease through magnetic resonance

Meave GA, Hernández GM, Alexánderson RE, Vázquez AC, Ermenger OJ, Solorio MS, Romero IJL, Buendía HA

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 435-440
PDF size: 80.25 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To analyze the usefulness of magnetic resonance for the morphological diagnosis in complex congenital cardiopathies and compare it with the transthoracic echocardiogram. Method: We included 45 patients with clinical suspicion of severe congenital cardiopathy. A magnetic resonance and a transthoracic echocardiogram were performed and the anatomy and size of the cardiac cavities were compared. Descriptive statistics were used and Bland-Altman test was used to analyze concordance between both methods. Results: There were no significant differences in the measures obtained with either method, except for the left ventricle ejection fraction (66.56 ± 9.47 with ECO vs 52.32 ± 13.85 with MR, p = 0.0001) and for diameter of the left branch of the pulmonary artery (9.77 ± 6.80 with ECO vs 12.83 ± 8.46 with MR, p = 0.05). The sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of MR were high to analyze the AV and VA connection, but not for the atrial sinus and the venous drainages (pulmonary and systemic). Concordance of ejection fraction measures, McGoon index, and size of VD revealed few extreme values. Conclusions: MR and ECO are similar for the morphological diagnosis of severe congenital cardiopathies, but MR can be better than ECO for the visualization of extracardiac structures.


REFERENCES

  1. Seward JB: Multiplane transesophageal echocardiography: image orientation, examination technique, anatomic correlations, and clinical applications. Mayo Clin Proc 1993; 68: 523-530.

  2. Allen HD, Beekman RH, Garson A, Hijazi ZM, Mullins C, O’Laughlin MP, et al: Pediatric therapeutic cardiac catheterization. A statement for healthcare professionals from the council on cardiovascular disease in the young, American Heart Association. Circulation 1998; 97: 609-625.

  3. Schulz-Menger J, Gross M, Messroghli D, Uhlich F, Dietz R, Friedrich MG: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance of acute myocardial infarction at a very early stage. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 42(3): 513-8.

  4. Kupfahl C, Honold M, Meinhardt G, Vogelsberg H, Wagner A, Mahrholdt H, et al: Evaluation of aortic stenosis by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: comparison with established routine clinical techniques. Heart 2004; 90: 893-901.

  5. Pombo JF, Troy BL, Russell RO: Left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction by echocardiography. Circulation 1971; 43: 480-490.

  6. Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307-10.

  7. Haramati LB, Glickstein JS, Issenberg HJ, Haramati N, Crooke GA: MR Imaging and CT of vascular anomalies and connections in patients with congenital heart disease: Significance in surgical planning. RadioGraphics 2002; 22: 337-349.

  8. Masui T, Seelos KC, Kersting-Sommerhoff BA, Higgins CB: Abnormalities of the pulmonary veins: evaluation with MR imaging and comparison with cardiac angiography and echocardiography. Radiology 1991; 181: 645-9.

  9. Pilleul F, Merchant N: MRI of the pulmonary veins: Comparison between 3D MR, angiography and T1-Weighted Spin Echo. J Comp Assisted Tomogr 2000; 24(5): 683-687.

  10. Kersting-Sommerhoff B, Diethelm L, Teitel D, Sommmerhof C, Higgins S, Higashino S, et al: Magnetic Resonance Imaging of congenital heart disease: sensitivity and specificity using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Progress in Cardiol 1989; 118: 155-161.

  11. Stollberger C, Ernst G, Bonner E, Finsterer J, Slany J: Left atrial appendage morphology: comparison of transesophageal images and postmortem casts. Zeitschrift fur Kardiologie 2003; 92(4): 303-8.

  12. Motoyasu M, Sakuma H, Iwasaki H, Onishi K, Okinaka T, Isaka N, et al: A case of inverted left atrial appendage mimicking a tumor. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2003; 27(4): 501-4.

  13. Dos L, Teruel L, Ferreira IJ, Rodriguez-Larrea J, Miro L, Girona J, et al: Late outcome of Senning and Mustard procedures for correction of transposition of the great arteries. Heart 2005; 91(5): 652-6.

  14. Attie F, Rosas M, Granados N, Zabal C, Buendia A, Calderon J: Surgical treatment for secundum atrial septal defects in patients > 40 years old. A randomized clinical trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 38(7): 2035-42.

  15. Attie F: Cardiopatías congénitas del adulto. Elsevier España. 2003: 3-66.

  16. Hofbeck M, Singer H, Scharf J, Wild F, Ries M, Mahmoud O, Blum U, von der Emde J: Total cavopulmonary anastomosis: selection criteria related to postoperative results. Thorac & Cardiovasc Surg 1993; 41(1): 28-33.

  17. Van der Geest RJ, Buller VG, Jansen E, Lamb HJ, Baur LH, Van der Wall EE, et al: Comparison between manual and semiautomated analysis of left ventricular volume parameters from short-axis MR images. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1997; 21(5): 756-765.

  18. Kuecherer HF, Kee LL, Modin G, Cheitlin MD, Schiller NB: Echocardiography in serial evaluation of left ventricular systolic and diastolic function: importance of image acquisition, quantitation, and physiologic variability in clinical and investigational applications. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 1991; 4: 203-214.

  19. Hong YK, Park YW, Ryu SJ, Won JW, Choi JY, Sul JH, et al: Efficacy of MRI in complicated congenital heart disease with visceral heterotaxy syndrome. J Comp Assist Tomogr 2000; 24(5): 671-682.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com