BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of partial anomalous pulmonary venous return is usually suspected by echocardiography and often confirmed by cardiac catheterization. Magnetic resonance imaging is a powerful non-invasive diagnostic tool that can give accurate insight on systemic and pulmonary veins, cardiac anatomy and physiopathology. AIM: To test the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance in patient with suspected partial anomalous pulmonary venous return. CASE PRESENTATION: Twenty consecutive patients (10 male, mean age: 27+/-20 years) with suspected partial anomalous pulmonary venous return underwent a magnetic resonance study comprehensive of Gadolinium-enhanced three-dimensional magnetic resonance angiography and phase-velocity-contrast in order to evaluate pulmonary and systemic venous anatomy and QP/QS. In 14 of them a cardiac catheterization was also performed. Anatomy findings and QP/QS result of both exams were compared. Sixteen patients underwent surgical correction. In the other four patients with QP/QS<1.5, surgical correction was not indicated according to the literature (1). Among patients who had both magnetic resonance and cardiac catheterization (14 patients) anatomical findings were concordant in 12 of them. In all operated patients, surgical findings were concordant with MRI report. There was a good correlation between magnetic resonance and cardiac catheterization QP/QS evaluation (mean value 2.23 and 2.4, respectively). CONCLUSION: In patients with suspected anomalous pulmonary venous return, magnetic resonance provides a comprehensive evaluation of pulmonary venous return and the amount of shunt, overcoming most of the limitations of echocardiography. Therefore magnetic resonance is a powerful diagnostic tool for indicating therapeutic management and surgical strategies for this group of patients, and can be considered a non-invasive alternative to cardiac catheterization.
BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of partial anomalous pulmonary venous return is usually suspected by echocardiography and often confirmed by cardiac catheterization. Magnetic resonance imaging is a powerful non-invasive diagnostic tool that can give accurate insight on systemic and pulmonary veins, cardiac anatomy and physiopathology. AIM: To test the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance in patient with suspected partial anomalous pulmonary venous return. CASE PRESENTATION: Twenty consecutive patients (10 male, mean age: 27+/-20 years) with suspected partial anomalous pulmonary venous return underwent a magnetic resonance study comprehensive of Gadolinium-enhanced three-dimensional magnetic resonance angiography and phase-velocity-contrast in order to evaluate pulmonary and systemic venous anatomy and QP/QS. In 14 of them a cardiac catheterization was also performed. Anatomy findings and QP/QS result of both exams were compared. Sixteen patients underwent surgical correction. In the other four patients with QP/QS<1.5, surgical correction was not indicated according to the literature (1). Among patients who had both magnetic resonance and cardiac catheterization (14 patients) anatomical findings were concordant in 12 of them. In all operated patients, surgical findings were concordant with MRI report. There was a good correlation between magnetic resonance and cardiac catheterization QP/QS evaluation (mean value 2.23 and 2.4, respectively). CONCLUSION: In patients with suspected anomalous pulmonary venous return, magnetic resonance provides a comprehensive evaluation of pulmonary venous return and the amount of shunt, overcoming most of the limitations of echocardiography. Therefore magnetic resonance is a powerful diagnostic tool for indicating therapeutic management and surgical strategies for this group of patients, and can be considered a non-invasive alternative to cardiac catheterization.
Authors: A Kitabatake; M Inoue; M Asao; H Ito; T Masuyama; J Tanouchi; T Morita; M Hori; H Yoshima; K Ohnishi Journal: Circulation Date: 1984-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: E Di Cesare; F Cademartiri; I Carbone; A Carriero; M Centonze; F De Cobelli; R De Rosa; P Di Renzi; A Esposito; R Faletti; R Fattori; M Francone; A Giovagnoni; L La Grutta; G Ligabue; L Lovato; R Marano; M Midiri; A Romagnoli; V Russo; F Sardanelli; L Natale; J Bogaert; A De Roos Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2012-11-26 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Maria Prompona; Olaf Muehling; Michael Naebauer; Stefan O Schoenberg; Maximilian Reiser; Armin Huber Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-08-05 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Albert Hsiao; Ufra Yousaf; Marcus T Alley; Michael Lustig; Frandics Pak Chan; Beverley Newman; Shreyas S Vasanawala Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Eugénie Marie-Christine Riesenkampff; Boris Schmitt; Bernhard Schnackenburg; Michael Huebler; Vladimir Alexi-Meskishvili; Roland Hetzer; Felix Berger; Titus Kuehne Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2009-01-30 Impact factor: 1.655