4.3 Article

The challenge of fetal dysrhythmias:: echocardiographic diagnosis and clinical management

期刊

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 153-160

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.2459/JCM.0b013e3281053bf1

关键词

diagnosis; dysrhythmias; fetal echocardiography; therapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective The present study aimed to evaluate the management of fetal cardiac dysrhythmias based on prior identification of the underlying electrophysiological mechanism. Methods We studied 36 consecutive fetuses with cardiac dysrhythmia. Rhythm diagnosis was based on M-mode, pulsed wave Doppler and tissue Doppler imaging (TDI). Only fetuses with: (i) incessant tachycardia (>12 h) and mean ventricular rate >200beats/min, (ii) signs of left ventricular dysfunction, or (iii) hydrops, were treated using oral maternal drug therapy. Results The mean gestational age at diagnosis was 24.3 +/- 4.5 weeks. Twenty-one fetuses had tachycardia with a 1 :1 trial-ventricular (AV) conduction. Based on ventricular-'trial interval, prenatal diagnosis was: permanent junctional reciprocating (n = 6), atrial ectopic (n = 6) or 'trial-ventricular re-entry tachycardia (n = 9). One had atrial flutter, one ventricular tachycardia and four congenital AV block. Nine showed premature atrial or ventricular beats. Fifteen fetuses with incessant tachycardia, left ventricular dysfunction or hydrops were prenatally treated with maternal administration of digoxin, sotalol or flecainide. The total success rate (sinus rhythm or rate control) was 14/15 (93%). Seven fetuses were hydropics. Three of these died (one at 28 weeks of gestation, two in the first week of life). The prenatal diagnosis of dysrhythmia was confirmed at the birth in 31 of 35 live-born. No misdiagnosis was made using TDI. At 3 +/- 1.1-year follow-up, 33/35 children were alive and well. Conclusions Fetal echocardiography could clarify the electrophysiological mechanism of fetal cardiac dysrhythmias and guide the therapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据