The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2025
Impact of echocardiographic and computed-tomography assessment of Sano shunt stenosis on need for percutaneous intervention.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Soszyn Natalie, Minocha Prashant K, Frank Benjamin, Mejia Ernesto, Zablah Jenny E, Morgan Gareth J
Аннотация
The decision for Sano re-intervention is made on the patient's clinical condition and imaging suggestive of conduit stenosis; however, no consensus exists on what imaging parameters best identify patients requiring re-intervention. We undertook a single center retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent a Norwood-Sano procedure to understand which echocardiographic and CT parameters were associated with intervention prior to second-stage palliation. Proximal and distal Sano Doppler velocity and peak gradients (PG) were recorded from TTE performed prior to Sano stenting or second-stage palliation if no intervention performed. Measured CT parameters included minimum and maximum diameter (mm), perimeter (mm), and cross-sectional area (mm2). Seventy-seven were identified. All had echocardiographic conduit assessment and 44 (57%) had a CT. Thirty-one (40%) required Sano stenting: 5 (16%) proximal, 16 (52%) distal and 10 (32%) both. Higher mean proximal Sano velocity and PG was associated with proximal Sano intervention (2 vs. 3 m/s, p = 0.001; 18 vs. 41mmHg, p = 0.001) while lower mean proximal Sano velocity and PG was associated with distal intervention (2.4 vs. 3.4 m/s, p = 0.03; 25 vs. 49mmHg, p = 0.03). Smaller distal Sano CT measurements were associated with distal stenting (minimum diameter: 4.1 vs. 4.9 mm,p = 0.007; maximum diameter: 5 vs. 6.2 mm, p = 0.003; perimeter: 14.8 vs. 17.7 mm, p = 0.003; CSA: 17.2 vs. 24.1mm2, p = 0.003). Higher median reduction in Sano conduit minimum diameter from nominal (22% vs. 5%, p = 0.01), perimeter (25% vs. 13%, p = 0.001), and CSA (44% vs. 26%, p = 0.006) was seen if stenting was required. Though Doppler-derived gradients remain a useful screening tool, obtaining cross-sectional CT imaging in patients demonstrating clinical concern regarding Sano shunt stenosis can be beneficial in identifying patients with distal Sano stenosis.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
HumansRetrospective StudiesPredictive Value of TestsStentsTreatment OutcomeFemaleMaleNorwood ProceduresHypoplastic Left Heart SyndromeEchocardiography, DopplerCardiac CatheterizationInfant, NewbornComputed Tomography AngiographyPalliative CarePulmonary ArteryMultidetector Computed TomographyGraft Occlusion, VascularInfantHemodynamics