Wilhelm Carolyn M, Sisk Tracey L, Roble Sharon L, Chisolm Joanne L, Janevski Ilija, Cheatham John P, Cua Clifford L
The Heart Center, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio.
Echocardiography. 2016 Mar;33(3):437-42. doi: 10.1111/echo.13097. Epub 2015 Nov 15.
Patients with dextro-transposition of the great arteries (d-TGA) status post atrial switch operation are vulnerable to complications such as baffle leaks. The best noninvasive imaging modality to detect baffle leaks is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of different noninvasive imaging modalities in the detection of baffle leaks in this population.
A single center retrospective chart review of atrial switch patients was performed. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value for detecting leaks were calculated for transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) with and without agitated saline, transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) with and without agitated saline, and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI). Studies were included if performed within 1 year of catheterization. Angiography via catheterization was used as the gold standard for the detection of baffle leaks. Fifty-eight atrial switch patients (54 Mustards: four Sennings) from a single pediatric center, undergoing 76 catheterizations, were analyzed. Thirty-nine catheterizations documented a baffle leak. Overall combination of sensitivity and specificity was better in agitated saline studies (TTE: sensitivity 71.4%, specificity 100%; TEE: sensitivity 100%, specificity 92.3%) versus nonagitated studies (TTE: sensitivity 50.0%, specificity 100%; TEE: sensitivity 83.3%, specificity 77.8%; or cMRI: sensitivity 66.7%, specificity 100%).
TTE or TEE with agitated saline is superior to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging or nonagitated saline TTE and TEE in detecting baffle leaks in atrial switch patients. Agitated saline studies should be performed in this population when looking for baffle leaks.
接受心房调转术的大动脉右位转位(d-TGA)患者易发生诸如挡板渗漏等并发症。目前尚不清楚检测挡板渗漏的最佳无创成像方式。本研究的目的是确定不同无创成像方式在检测该人群挡板渗漏中的敏感性和特异性。
对心房调转术患者进行单中心回顾性病历审查。计算了经胸超声心动图(TTE)(有无生理盐水激发)、经食管超声心动图(TEE)(有无生理盐水激发)以及心脏磁共振成像(cMRI)检测渗漏的敏感性、特异性、阴性预测值和阳性预测值。如果检查在导管插入术1年内进行则纳入研究。通过导管插入术进行的血管造影被用作检测挡板渗漏的金标准。分析了来自单个儿科中心的58例心房调转术患者(54例Mustard术式:4例Senning术式),共进行了76次导管插入术。39次导管插入术记录有挡板渗漏。与未使用生理盐水激发的研究相比,使用生理盐水激发的研究在敏感性和特异性的总体组合方面表现更好(TTE:敏感性71.4%,特异性100%;TEE:敏感性100%,特异性92.3%),而未使用生理盐水激发的研究中(TTE:敏感性50.0%,特异性100%;TEE:敏感性83.3%,特异性77.8%;或cMRI:敏感性66.7%,特异性100%)。
在检测心房调转术患者的挡板渗漏方面, 使用生理盐水激发的TTE或TEE优于心脏磁共振成像或未使用生理盐水激发的TTE和TEE。在该人群中寻找挡板渗漏时应进行使用生理盐水激发的研究。