Ventricular function and cardiac reserve in contemporary Fontan patients.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Total cavopulmonary connection (TCPC) has been the preferred treatment for patients with univentricular hearts. Current TCPC-techniques are the intra-atrial lateral tunnel (ILT) and the extracardiac conduit (ECC). We aimed to determine ventricular function during rest and stress, and to compare results for both techniques and for left (LV) versus right ventricular (RV) dominance. METHODS: 99 patients, aged 12.5 ± 4.0 years underwent echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and 69 patients underwent stress MRI. RESULTS: Echocardiography showed impaired systolic and diastolic function. MRI parameters were comparable between ILT and ECC at rest. During dobutamine there was a decrease in end-diastolic volume (EDVi) (91 ± 21 vs. 80 ± 20 ml/m(2) p<0.001). Ejection fraction (EF) and cardiac index (CI) during dobutamine were lower for ILT patients (59 ± 11 (ILT) vs. 64 ± 7% (ECC), p=0.027 and 4.2 ± 1.0 (ILT) vs. 4.9 ± 1.0L/min/m(2) (ECC), p=0.006), whereas other parameters were comparable. TEI-index was higher in ILT-patients (0.72 ± 0.27 (ILT) vs. 0.56 ± 0.22 (ECC), p=0.002). Diastolic function was frequently impaired in patients with a dominant RV (67% (RV) vs. 39% (LV), p=0.011). Patients with dominant LV's had smaller end-systolic volume (ESVi) (40 ± 13 (LV) vs. 47 ± 16 (RV) ml/m(2), p=0.030) and higher EF (55 ± 8 (LV) vs. 49 ± 9 ml/m(2) (RV), p=0.001) and contractility (2.3 ± 0.8 (LV) vs. 1.9 ± 0.7 mmHg/ml/m(2) (RV), p=0.050) during rest and higher EF during dobutamine (63 ± 8 (LV) vs. 58 ± 10 ml/m(2) (RV), p=0.043). CONCLUSION: Ventricular function is relatively well preserved in modern-day Fontan patients. With dobutamine stress there is a decrease in EDVi. ECC patients have higher CI and EF during stress. Patients with a dominant RV have lower systolic, including impaired contractility, and diastolic function.

Is cardiac CT a reproducible alternative for cardiac MR in adult patients with a systemic right ventricle?

OBJECTIVE: 20 % of patients with a systemic RV are pacemaker dependent, and unsuitable to undergo cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Multidetector row computed tomography (MDCT) could provide a reproducible alternative to CMR in these patients. The aim of this study was to compare variability of MDCT with CMR. METHODS: Thirty-five patients with systemic RV underwent either MDCT (n = 15) or CMR (n = 20). Systemic RV volumes and ejection fraction were obtained, and intra- and interobserver variability for both modalities were assessed and compared. RESULTS: We found the intra- and interobserver variability of volumes and function measurements of the systemic RV obtained with MDCT to be higher compared with those obtained with CMR. However, these differences in variability were not significant, the only exception being the interobserver variability of systemic RV stroke volume. CONCLUSIONS: MDCT provides a reproducible alternative to CMR for volumes and function assessment in patients with a systemic RV.

Recovery of right and left ventricular function after acute pulmonary embolism.

AIM: To evaluate recovery of cardiac function after acute pulmonary embolism (PE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Routine breath-held computed tomography (CT)-pulmonary angiography was performed in patients with suspected PE to confirm or exclude the diagnosis of PE at initial presentation. Electrocardiogram (ECG)-triggered cardiac CT was performed to assess biventricular function. After 6 months, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed. In total, 15 consecutive patients with PE and 10 without were studied. A significant change in ventricular volume was defined as a >15% change in end-diastolic or -systolic volumes (EDV, ESV), and significant ventricular function improvement as a >5% increase in ejection fraction (EF) as based on reported cut-off values. RESULTS: Right and left ventricular (RV and LV) EDV and ESV changed non-significantly (<1.3%) in the patients without PE, indicating good comparability of those values measured by CT and MRI. PE patients with baseline normal RV function (RVEF ≥ 47%) revealed a >5% improvement in the RVEF (+5.4 ± 3.1%) due to a decrease in the RVESV. Patients with baseline abnormal RV function showed a >5% improvement in the RVEF (+14 ± 15%) due to decreases in both the RVESV and RVEDV. Furthermore, the LVEDV increased in this latter patient group. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated an improvement in RV function in the majority of patients with PE, independent of baseline RV function. The degree of RV and LV recovery was dependent on the severity of baseline RV dysfunction.