BACKGROUND: In patients with congenital cardiac malformations, accurate diagnosis is critical in diagnosis and management. The multiplanar review mode (MPR) allows the operator to cut three-dimensional (3D) echocardiographic data sets in infinite planes, and to review the moving image in three simultaneous orthogonal planes. We sought to describe the clinical utility of MPR of 3D echocardiography for analysis of congenitally malformed hearts. METHODS: Cross-sectional and 3D MPR echocardiography was performed in 300 patients with congenitally malformed hearts. RESULTS: Analysis in multiplanar mode was possible in all patients. New, clinically important information, which altered management or changed the principal diagnosis, was obtained in 32 (11%) cases. This determined suitability for biventricular repair in 11 patients, clarified the morphology of atrioventricular valves in 7, helped in assessment of aortic, mitral, or prosthetic valvar disease in 13, and identified a vascular ring in the other patient. CONCLUSIONS: 3D MPR is feasible in the setting of the congenitally malformed heart, permitting focused and in-depth analysis. This substantially improves the understanding of functional morphology, above the information derived from cross-sectional echocardiography. We recommend the use of the 3D format with MPR for patients with complex congenital cardiac disease.
BACKGROUND: In patients with congenital cardiac malformations, accurate diagnosis is critical in diagnosis and management. The multiplanar review mode (MPR) allows the operator to cut three-dimensional (3D) echocardiographic data sets in infinite planes, and to review the moving image in three simultaneous orthogonal planes. We sought to describe the clinical utility of MPR of 3D echocardiography for analysis of congenitally malformed hearts. METHODS: Cross-sectional and 3D MPR echocardiography was performed in 300 patients with congenitally malformed hearts. RESULTS: Analysis in multiplanar mode was possible in all patients. New, clinically important information, which altered management or changed the principal diagnosis, was obtained in 32 (11%) cases. This determined suitability for biventricular repair in 11 patients, clarified the morphology of atrioventricular valves in 7, helped in assessment of aortic, mitral, or prosthetic valvar disease in 13, and identified a vascular ring in the other patient. CONCLUSIONS: 3D MPR is feasible in the setting of the congenitally malformed heart, permitting focused and in-depth analysis. This substantially improves the understanding of functional morphology, above the information derived from cross-sectional echocardiography. We recommend the use of the 3D format with MPR for patients with complex congenital cardiac disease.