Right aortic arch with vascular ring in one monozygotic twin.

Department of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (Impact Factor: 3.99). 10/2005; 130(3):883-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2005.01.014
Source: PubMed
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the setting of normal cardiac situs, a right-sided aortic arch is uncommon. When a right arch does occur, it is typically in conjunction with other congenital cardiovascular anomalies, especially defects with abnormal right ventricular outflow. Congenital obstruction of a right arch, caused by coarctation, interruption, or cervical arch, is extremely rare. We reviewed our experience and all reported cases of right aortic arch with coarctation of the aorta, interrupted arch, or obstruction of a cervical arch in the setting of normal cardiac situs and topology. Since 1992, 4 such patients have undergone repair at our institution, including 1 with interrupted arch, 1 with coarctation of a mirror image arch, and 2 with obstruction of a cervical arch. In addition to these 4 patients, 38 others have been described in the published reports: 15 with interrupted arch, 19 with coarctation, and 4 with obstruction of a cervical arch. Associated cardiac defects were uncommon, except for ventricular septal defect in patients with interrupted arch, but abnormalities of the brachiocephalic vessels were frequent. Except for most of the patients with interrupted right arch, the majority of patients described have undergone successful surgical repair. Although obstructive arch lesions are often grouped together, the etiologies of coarctation of the aorta, interrupted arch, and cervical arch with obstruction almost certainly differ. The rarity of such lesions among patients with right aortic arch may be explained in part by the fact that the fetal hemodynamic conditions associated with persistence of a right arch do not facilitate flow-related arch obstruction. In this review, we discuss these issues in detail, along with specific surgical considerations in the management of obstruction lesions of the right aortic arch.
    The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 05/1999; 67(4):1194-202. · 3.63 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To test the hypothesis that identical twins show no inter-twin differences in cardiovascular structure or physiology in fetal life unless there has been twin-twin transfusion syndrome. Unselected prospective case-control observational study of fetoplacental haemodynamics including echocardiography at a median of 24 (16.7 to 32.3) weeks, with postnatal confirmation of congenital heart disease or normality. Fetal medicine unit. 136 women with monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies, of which 47 fetal twin pairs (35%) had twin-twin transfusion syndrome. There were no haemodynamic differences between the bigger fetus (twin 1) and the smaller co-twin (twin 2) in uncomplicated monochorionic diamniotic pairs. In twin-twin transfusion syndrome, recipient fetuses had increased aortic and pulmonary velocities compared with their donor co-twins (mean (SD): 0.73 (0.23) m/s and 0.63 (0.14) m/s), respectively, v 0.53 (0.16) m/s and 0.48 (0.10) m/s in donor twins; p = 0.003 (aortic) and < 0.0001 (pulmonary)), and also in comparison with twin 1 and twin 2. The overall prevalence of congenital heart disease was increased above that in singletons (3.8% v 0.56%; 6.9% in twin-twin transfusion v 2.3% in uncomplicated monochorionic diamniotic twins), with inter-twin discordance for defects. The prevalence in recipient twins was 11.9% (p = 0.014 v uncomplicated control twins). Fetuses with an identical genome but no circulatory imbalance have similar cardiovascular physiology but discordant phenotypic expression of congenital heart disease. The high prevalence of congenital heart disease in monochorionic diamniotic twins merits detailed fetal echocardiography.
    Heart (British Cardiac Society) 09/2002; 88(3):271-7. · 6.02 Impact Factor
  • New England Journal of Medicine 11/1945; 233:586-90. · 54.42 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 4, 2014