M Brossard-Racine1, A du Plessis2, G Vezina3, R Robertson4, M Donofrio5, W Tworetzky6, C Limperopoulos7. 1. From the Advanced Pediatric Brain Imaging Research Laboratory (M.B.-R., C.L.) Division of Diagnostic Imaging and Radiology (M.B.-R., G.V., C.L.) Fetal and Transitional Medicine (M.B.-R., A.d.P., C.L.). 2. Fetal and Transitional Medicine (M.B.-R., A.d.P., C.L.). 3. Division of Diagnostic Imaging and Radiology (M.B.-R., G.V., C.L.). 4. Divisions of Radiology (R.R.). 5. Division of Cardiology (M.D.), Children's National Health System, Washington DC. 6. Cardiology (W.T.), Children's Hospital Boston and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. From the Advanced Pediatric Brain Imaging Research Laboratory (M.B.-R., C.L.) Division of Diagnostic Imaging and Radiology (M.B.-R., G.V., C.L.) Fetal and Transitional Medicine (M.B.-R., A.d.P., C.L.) climpero@childrensnational.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Brain injury in neonates with congenital heart disease is an important predictor of adverse neurodevelopmental outcome. Impaired brain development in congenital heart disease may have a prenatal origin, but the sensitivity and specificity of fetal brain MR imaging for predicting neonatal brain lesions are currently unknown. We sought to determine the value of conventional fetal MR imaging for predicting abnormal findings on neonatal preoperative MR imaging in neonates with complex congenital heart disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR imaging studies were performed in 103 fetuses with confirmed congenital heart disease (mean gestational age, 31.57 ± 3.86 weeks) and were repeated postnatally before cardiac surgery (mean age, 6.8 ± 12.2 days). Each MR imaging study was read by a pediatric neuroradiologist. RESULTS: Brain abnormalities were detected in 17/103 (16%) fetuses by fetal MR imaging and in 33/103 (32%) neonates by neonatal MR imaging. Only 9/33 studies with abnormal neonatal findings were preceded by abnormal findings on fetal MR imaging. The sensitivity and specificity of conventional fetal brain MR imaging for predicting neonatal brain abnormalities were 27% and 89%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Brain abnormalities detected by in utero MR imaging in fetuses with congenital heart disease are associated with higher risk of postnatal preoperative brain injury. However, a substantial proportion of anomalies on postnatal MR imaging were not present on fetal MR imaging; this result is likely due to the limitations of conventional fetal MR imaging and the emergence of new lesions that occurred after the fetal studies. Postnatal brain MR imaging studies are needed to confirm the presence of injury before open heart surgery.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Brain injury in neonates with congenital heart disease is an important predictor of adverse neurodevelopmental outcome. Impaired brain development in congenital heart disease may have a prenatal origin, but the sensitivity and specificity of fetal brain MR imaging for predicting neonatal brain lesions are currently unknown. We sought to determine the value of conventional fetal MR imaging for predicting abnormal findings on neonatal preoperative MR imaging in neonates with complex congenital heart disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR imaging studies were performed in 103 fetuses with confirmed congenital heart disease (mean gestational age, 31.57 ± 3.86 weeks) and were repeated postnatally before cardiac surgery (mean age, 6.8 ± 12.2 days). Each MR imaging study was read by a pediatric neuroradiologist. RESULTS:Brain abnormalities were detected in 17/103 (16%) fetuses by fetal MR imaging and in 33/103 (32%) neonates by neonatal MR imaging. Only 9/33 studies with abnormal neonatal findings were preceded by abnormal findings on fetal MR imaging. The sensitivity and specificity of conventional fetal brain MR imaging for predicting neonatal brain abnormalities were 27% and 89%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Brain abnormalities detected by in utero MR imaging in fetuses with congenital heart disease are associated with higher risk of postnatal preoperative brain injury. However, a substantial proportion of anomalies on postnatal MR imaging were not present on fetal MR imaging; this result is likely due to the limitations of conventional fetal MR imaging and the emergence of new lesions that occurred after the fetal studies. Postnatal brain MR imaging studies are needed to confirm the presence of injury before open heart surgery.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Catherine Limperopoulos; Wayne Tworetzky; Doff B McElhinney; Jane W Newburger; David W Brown; Richard L Robertson; Nicolas Guizard; Ellen McGrath; Judith Geva; David Annese; Carolyn Dunbar-Masterson; Bethany Trainor; Peter C Laussen; Adré J du Plessis Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-12-21 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Dean B Andropoulos; Jill V Hunter; David P Nelson; Stephen A Stayer; Ann R Stark; E Dean McKenzie; Jeffrey S Heinle; Daniel E Graves; Charles D Fraser Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2009-11-11 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Daniel J Licht; David M Shera; Robert R Clancy; Gil Wernovsky; Lisa M Montenegro; Susan C Nicolson; Robert A Zimmerman; Thomas L Spray; J William Gaynor; Arastoo Vossough Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Cynthia M Ortinau; Caitlin K Rollins; Ali Gholipour; Hyuk Jin Yun; Mackenzie Marshall; Borjan Gagoski; Onur Afacan; Kevin Friedman; Wayne Tworetzky; Simon K Warfield; Jane W Newburger; Terrie E Inder; P Ellen Grant; Kiho Im Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2019-07-22 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Cynthia Hayek; V Rajagopalan; J Meouchy; J Votava-Smith; D Miller; S Del Castillo; A Panigrahy; L Paquette Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2020-06-16 Impact factor: 2.521
Authors: Christopher J Kelly; Sophie Arulkumaran; Catarina Tristão Pereira; Lucilio Cordero-Grande; Emer J Hughes; Rui Pedro A G Teixeira; Johannes K Steinweg; Suresh Victor; Kuberan Pushparajah; Joseph V Hajnal; John Simpson; A David Edwards; Mary A Rutherford; Serena J Counsell Journal: Arch Dis Child Date: 2019-06-26 Impact factor: 3.791
Authors: David F A Lloyd; Joshua F P van Amerom; Kuberan Pushparajah; John M Simpson; Vita Zidere; Owen Miller; Gurleen Sharland; Joanna Allsop; Matthew Fox; Maelene Lohezic; Maria Murgasova; Christina Malamateniou; Jo V Hajnal; Mary Rutherford; Reza Razavi Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Cynthia M Ortinau; Kathryn Mangin-Heimos; Joseph Moen; Dimitrios Alexopoulos; Terrie E Inder; Ali Gholipour; Joshua S Shimony; Pirooz Eghtesady; Bradley L Schlaggar; Christopher D Smyser Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2018-09-27 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Mirthe J Mebius; Catherina M Bilardo; Martin C J Kneyber; Marco Modestini; Tjark Ebels; Rolf M F Berger; Arend F Bos; Elisabeth M W Kooi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-03-25 Impact factor: 3.240