4.1 Article

Correlation of Symptoms with Bronchoscopic Findings in Children with a Prenatal Diagnosis of a Right Aortic Arch and Left Arterial Duct

期刊

PEDIATRIC CARDIOLOGY
卷 39, 期 4, 页码 665-673

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00246-017-1804-5

关键词

Congenital heart disease; Right aortic arch; Aberrant left subclavian artery; Vascular ring; Prenatal diagnosis; Tracheal compression; Bronchoscopy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A right aortic arch (RAA) with a left arterial duct (LAD) together encircle the trachea and have the potential to cause tracheobronchial compression and published guidelines recommend bronchoscopy in symptomatic patients. The aim of the study was to describe the incidence of tracheal compression in a cohort of prenatally diagnosed RAA and LAD. Retrospective review of clinical course and imaging of prenatal cases of RAA and LAD assessed with flexible bronchoscopy over an 11-year period. 34 cases of prenatally diagnosed RAA with LAD underwent bronchoscopy at median age of 9 months (range 0.4-123) of whom 11 had respiratory symptoms and 23 were asymptomatic. In the neonatal period, three cases demonstrated respiratory symptoms. An aberrant left subclavian artery (ALSA) was identified in 29 cases. Pulsatile tracheal compression was identified in 32/34 (94%) cases and two cases showed normal tracheal appearances. Significant tracheal compression (> 70% occlusion) was present in 25/34 (74%) cases of which 16 were asymptomatic. Significant carinal compression (> 70% occlusion) was identified in 14/34 (42%) cases, an ALSA was observed in 13/14. Surgical relief of a vascular ring has been performed in 27 (79%) cases at a median age of 15 months (range 0.6-128 months). At surgery, a fibrous remnant of an atretic left aortic arch was identified in 11/27 (41%) cases. Significant tracheal compression may be present in infants even without symptoms. If early relief of airway compression is to be achieved to promote normal development of tracheal cartilage, early bronchoscopy should be considered.

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

4.1
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