4.4 Article

Fetal echocardiographic markers to differentiate between a right and double aortic arch

Journal

PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS
Volume 42, Issue 4, Pages 419-427

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pd.6104

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Medical Engineering [WT203148/Z/16/Z]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study aimed to describe the fetal echocardiographic features of a double aortic arch and evaluate their performance in differentiating between different types of aortic arch abnormalities. The results showed that the Z configuration was a useful marker for distinguishing between right aortic arch with left duct and double aortic arch.
Objectives To describe the fetal echocardiographic features of a double aortic arch (DAA) and secondly, to assess the performance of these features to differentiate between a right aortic arch with left duct (RAA-LD) in a blinded cohort of vascular rings. Methods Review of records to identify surgically confirmed cases of DAA diagnosed prenatally from 2014 to 2018 (cohort-A). Prenatal echocardiograms were reviewed and the segments of the aortic arches anterior and posterior to the trachea, aortic isthmuses and the presence/absence of the Z-sign were described. The utility of these markers were assessed in a separate cohort (B) of fetuses with surgically confirmed cases of DAA or RAA-LD. Results Cohort-A comprised 34 cases with DAA; there was a dominant RAA in 32/34 (94%) and balanced left aortic arch (LAA) and RAA in two cases. The proximal LAA was seen in 29/34 (85%), distal LAA in 15/34 (44%) and the LAA aortic isthmus in 4/34 (12%). The Z configuration was present in 29/34 (85%) cases. The most predictive marker for DAA in cohort-B was the Z-sign (sensitivity: 100%, specificity: 81%). Conclusion The Z sign is a useful differentiator between RAA-LD and DAA. The absence of visualization of the left aortic isthmus does not preclude the presence of a DAA.

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