Pre- and post-interventional echo and cardiac magnetic resonance measurements
| . | Patient 1 . | Patient 2 . | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-intervention . | Post-intervention . | Pre-intervention . | Post-intervention . | |
| Age (years) | 13 | 18 | 16 | 22 |
| Echocardiography | ||||
| Visual RV function | Good | Good | Moderate | Moderate |
| RV dilatation | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| RV hypertrophy | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| TAPSE (mm) | 17 | 20 | 20.5 | 16 |
| CMR | ||||
| LVEDV (mL/m2) | 64 | — | 104 | 114 |
| LVESV (mL/m2) | 22 | — | 68 | 69 |
| LVSV (mL/m2) | 42 | — | 36 | 45 |
| LV mass (g/m2) | 41 | — | 39 | — |
| LVEF (%) | 66 | — | 35 | 40 |
| LV peak GLS (%) | −25 | — | −8 | — |
| HR (beats/min) | 76 | — | 83 | 72 |
| CO (L/min) | 3.2 | — | 3.0 | 3.2 |
| RVEDV (mL/m2) | 61 | — | 114 | 117 |
| RVESV (mL/m2) | 19 | — | 72 | 72 |
| RVSV (mL/m2) | 42 | — | 41 | 45 |
| RV mass (g/m2) | 27 | — | 19 | — |
| RV relative wall thickness (g/mL) | 0.44 | — | 0.17 | — |
| RVEF (%) | 68 | — | 37 | 39 |
| RV FW peak GLS (%) | −29 | — | −7 | — |
| . | Patient 1 . | Patient 2 . | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-intervention . | Post-intervention . | Pre-intervention . | Post-intervention . | |
| Age (years) | 13 | 18 | 16 | 22 |
| Echocardiography | ||||
| Visual RV function | Good | Good | Moderate | Moderate |
| RV dilatation | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| RV hypertrophy | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| TAPSE (mm) | 17 | 20 | 20.5 | 16 |
| CMR | ||||
| LVEDV (mL/m2) | 64 | — | 104 | 114 |
| LVESV (mL/m2) | 22 | — | 68 | 69 |
| LVSV (mL/m2) | 42 | — | 36 | 45 |
| LV mass (g/m2) | 41 | — | 39 | — |
| LVEF (%) | 66 | — | 35 | 40 |
| LV peak GLS (%) | −25 | — | −8 | — |
| HR (beats/min) | 76 | — | 83 | 72 |
| CO (L/min) | 3.2 | — | 3.0 | 3.2 |
| RVEDV (mL/m2) | 61 | — | 114 | 117 |
| RVESV (mL/m2) | 19 | — | 72 | 72 |
| RVSV (mL/m2) | 42 | — | 41 | 45 |
| RV mass (g/m2) | 27 | — | 19 | — |
| RV relative wall thickness (g/mL) | 0.44 | — | 0.17 | — |
| RVEF (%) | 68 | — | 37 | 39 |
| RV FW peak GLS (%) | −29 | — | −7 | — |
Table 1 shows the pre- and post-interventional measurements using echocardiography and CMR in two cases with ToF and RV pressure overload. RV relative wall thickness was calculated as RV mass/RVEDV.11 LV GLS, left ventricular global longitudinal strain; RV FW GLS, right ventricular free wall global longitudinal strain.
Pre- and post-interventional echo and cardiac magnetic resonance measurements
| . | Patient 1 . | Patient 2 . | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-intervention . | Post-intervention . | Pre-intervention . | Post-intervention . | |
| Age (years) | 13 | 18 | 16 | 22 |
| Echocardiography | ||||
| Visual RV function | Good | Good | Moderate | Moderate |
| RV dilatation | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| RV hypertrophy | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| TAPSE (mm) | 17 | 20 | 20.5 | 16 |
| CMR | ||||
| LVEDV (mL/m2) | 64 | — | 104 | 114 |
| LVESV (mL/m2) | 22 | — | 68 | 69 |
| LVSV (mL/m2) | 42 | — | 36 | 45 |
| LV mass (g/m2) | 41 | — | 39 | — |
| LVEF (%) | 66 | — | 35 | 40 |
| LV peak GLS (%) | −25 | — | −8 | — |
| HR (beats/min) | 76 | — | 83 | 72 |
| CO (L/min) | 3.2 | — | 3.0 | 3.2 |
| RVEDV (mL/m2) | 61 | — | 114 | 117 |
| RVESV (mL/m2) | 19 | — | 72 | 72 |
| RVSV (mL/m2) | 42 | — | 41 | 45 |
| RV mass (g/m2) | 27 | — | 19 | — |
| RV relative wall thickness (g/mL) | 0.44 | — | 0.17 | — |
| RVEF (%) | 68 | — | 37 | 39 |
| RV FW peak GLS (%) | −29 | — | −7 | — |
| . | Patient 1 . | Patient 2 . | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-intervention . | Post-intervention . | Pre-intervention . | Post-intervention . | |
| Age (years) | 13 | 18 | 16 | 22 |
| Echocardiography | ||||
| Visual RV function | Good | Good | Moderate | Moderate |
| RV dilatation | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| RV hypertrophy | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| TAPSE (mm) | 17 | 20 | 20.5 | 16 |
| CMR | ||||
| LVEDV (mL/m2) | 64 | — | 104 | 114 |
| LVESV (mL/m2) | 22 | — | 68 | 69 |
| LVSV (mL/m2) | 42 | — | 36 | 45 |
| LV mass (g/m2) | 41 | — | 39 | — |
| LVEF (%) | 66 | — | 35 | 40 |
| LV peak GLS (%) | −25 | — | −8 | — |
| HR (beats/min) | 76 | — | 83 | 72 |
| CO (L/min) | 3.2 | — | 3.0 | 3.2 |
| RVEDV (mL/m2) | 61 | — | 114 | 117 |
| RVESV (mL/m2) | 19 | — | 72 | 72 |
| RVSV (mL/m2) | 42 | — | 41 | 45 |
| RV mass (g/m2) | 27 | — | 19 | — |
| RV relative wall thickness (g/mL) | 0.44 | — | 0.17 | — |
| RVEF (%) | 68 | — | 37 | 39 |
| RV FW peak GLS (%) | −29 | — | −7 | — |
Table 1 shows the pre- and post-interventional measurements using echocardiography and CMR in two cases with ToF and RV pressure overload. RV relative wall thickness was calculated as RV mass/RVEDV.11 LV GLS, left ventricular global longitudinal strain; RV FW GLS, right ventricular free wall global longitudinal strain.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
