Key result
Magnetic resonance imaging showed substantial diagnostic accord with echocardiography and angiocardiography, providing additional anatomical information in 8 of 18 patients.
Why the study?
The effectiveness and limitations of magnetic resonance imaging in defining cardiac anatomy in patients with double inlet ventricle or atrioventricular valve atresia were not well established.
Does magnetic resonance imaging accurately define cardiac anatomy compared to echocardiography and angiocardiography in patients with suspected univentricular atrioventricular connection?
Observational (n=18)
No
Does magnetic resonance imaging accurately define cardiac anatomy compared to echocardiography and angiocardiography in patients with suspected univentricular atrioventricular connection?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
MRI provides valuable complementary anatomical information to echocardiography in patients with univentricular atrioventricular connections.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness and limitations of magnetic resonance imaging in defining cardiac anatomy in patients with double inlet ventricle or atrioventricular valve atresia. DESIGN: Magnetic resonance images were reviewed retrospectively without reference to other morphological data. SETTING: A tertiary referral centre for paediatric cardiology. PATIENTS: 18 patients (aged 8 days to 27 years) with a suspected univentricular atrioventricular connection. METHODS: Imaging by a 1.5 T whole body magnetic resonance system with imaging planes adjusted to individual patient anatomy to best define the cardiac morphology. A complete sequential diagnosis obtained from an independent interpretation of the images was compared with the diagnosis obtained from cross sectional echocardiography and angiocardiography. RESULTS: There was substantial accord between the diagnosis from magnetic resonance alone and that from other methods. In the six instances where there was not accord the magnetic resonance diagnosis was considered to be correct in two cases and incorrect in three cases. In the remaining case no consensus could be reached. In eight patients magnetic resonance imaging provided anatomical information additional to that from other methods. The strengths of magnetic resonance were in imaging the pulmonary arteries and their abnormalities and identifying juxtaposed atrial appendanges but there were some deficiencies in identifying Blalock-Taussig shunts. CONCLUSION: Magnetic resonance imaging provided detailed information about all aspects of cardiac morphology in patients with a suspected diagnosis of univentricular atrioventricular connection. Often it provided additional information to echocardiography. Its use in selected patients should give valuable complementary information.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huggon et al. (1992) conducted an observational in Suspected univentricular atrioventricular connection (n=18). Magnetic resonance imaging vs. Cross sectional echocardiography and angiocardiography was evaluated on Diagnostic accord with cross sectional echocardiography and angiocardiography. Magnetic resonance imaging showed substantial diagnostic accord with echocardiography and angiocardiography, providing additional anatomical information in 8 of 18 patients.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: