4.4 Review

The aorto-left ventricular tunnel from a fetal perspective: Original case series and literature review

Journal

PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS
Volume 42, Issue 2, Pages 267-277

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pd.6090

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study retrospectively reviewed 20 cases of congenital heart defect ALVT and observed their prenatal and postnatal conditions. The results showed that the prognosis of these infants was good in the absence of fetal hydrops.
Introduction Aorto-left ventricular tunnel (ALVT) accounts for <0.1% of congenital heart defects. Evidence on the prognosis from a fetal perspective is limited. With this retrospective international case series, we provide information on the outcome of fetuses with ALVT. Methods All members of the Association for European Pediatric and Congenital Cardiology's (AEPC) fetal working group and fetal medicine units worldwide were invited for participation. We observed antenatal parameters, neonatal outcome and postnatal follow-up. Additionally, a systematic search of the literature was performed. Results Twenty fetuses with ALVT were identified in 10 participating centers (2001-2019). Fetal echocardiographic characteristics of ALVT included an increased cardiac-thorax ratio (95%), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (90%) and a dysplastic aortic valve (90%). Extracardiac malformations were rare (5%). Eight fetuses died at a median gestational age (GA) of 21 + 6 weeks (range, 19-24): all showed signs of hydrops prior to 24 weeks or at autopsy. All others (60%, 12/2) were live-born (median GA 38 + 4, range 37-40), underwent surgery and were alive at last follow up (median 3.2 years, range 0.1-17). The literature reported 22 ALVT fetuses with similar outcome. Conclusions In the absence of fetal hydrops, ALVT carries a good prognosis. Fetuses who survive to 24 weeks without hydrops are likely to have a good outcome.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available