4.5 Article

Functional Anatomy of Tricuspid Regurgitation in Patients with Systemic Right Ventricles

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.echo.2010.01.007

关键词

Congenital; Echocardiography; Heart defects; Valves

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Although the functional anatomy of mitral regurgitation has been thoroughly studied and is strongly predictive of postoperative outcome, the functional anatomy of tricuspid regurgitation (TR) in patients with systemic right ventricles has not been described. Methods: We measured the indices of tricuspid valve deformation, right ventricular remodeling and function, and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) concentrations in a series of 42 patients (mean age 20.8 +/- 3.7 years) with systemic right ventricles after atrial switch for complete transposition of the great arteries. Results: TR was present in 34 patients. It was associated with predominant annular dilatation in 5 patients (14.7%), valvular prolapse in 14 patients (41.1%), and systolic leaflet tethering in 15 patients (44.1%). Compared with patients with valve prolapse, patients with leaflet tethering had greater end-systolic right ventricular cavity area (21.1 +/- 3.6 cm(2) vs 27.3 +/- 7.9 cm(2); P < .05), lower right ventricular fractional area change (0.40 +/- 0.09 vs 0.34 +/- 0.09, P < .05), and higher BNP levels (14.6 +/- 13.5 pg/mL vs 25 +/- 24.3 pg/mL, P < .05). Intermediate values were observed in patients with annular dilatation (23.9 +/- 5.6 cm(2); 0.37 +/- 0.05 pg/mL and 19.0 +/- 0.07 pg/mL, respectively). Conclusion: Three distinct types of TR, caused by predominant annular dilatation, valve prolapse, and valve tethering, were apparent in patients with systemic right ventricles. They were associated with diverse severity of right ventricular dysfunction and BNP activation. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of variable functional anatomy of the systemic tricuspid valve on the outcome of medical and surgical therapies. (J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2010; 23: 504-10.)

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

4.5
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