Advertisement

Chest X-ray in Right Heart Disease

  • Zhonghua Sun
  • Dongting Liu
  • Zhanming Fan
Chapter

Abstract

Right heart pathology receives less attention from clinicians than left-sided heart disease, and knowledge of the importance of right heart, in particular right ventricle in disease development lags behind that of the left ventricle. In recent years, increasing evidence shows that right heart disease has significant impact on morbidity and mortality, thus highlighting the importance of recognizing right heart disease in clinical practice. Although ultrasound and computed tomography are the most commonly used diagnostic image techniques in the diagnosis of right heart disease, chest radiography still remains the first line technique in many applications. Despite non-specific findings in most of the situations, chest X-ray provides useful information for further diagnostic imaging tests of assessing right heart disease. This chapter provides an overview of applications of chest X-ray in the diagnosis of various right heart diseases.

Keywords

Chest radiography Diagnosis Imaging techniques Right heart disease 

References

  1. 1.
    Bruce CJ, Connolly HM. Right-sided valve disease deserves a little more respect. Circulation. 2009;119:2726–34.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.776021.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Voelkel NF, Quaife RA, Leinwand LA, et al. Right ventricular function and failure: report of a national heart, lung, and blood institute working group on cellular and molecular mechanisms of right heart failure. Circulation. 2006;114:1883–91.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.632208.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Somerville J, Grech V. The chest X-ray in congenital heart disease 1. Total anomalous pulmonary venous drainage and coarctation of the aorta. Images Paediatr Cardiol. 2009;11:7–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Somerville J, Grech V. The chest X-ray in congenital heart disease 2. Images Paediatr Cardiol. 2010;12:1–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haddad R, Hunt SA, Rosenthal DN, et al. Right ventricular function in cardiovascular disease, part I: anatomy, physiology, aging, and functional assessment of the right ventricle. Circulation. 2008;117:1436–48.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.653576.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sheehan F, Redington A. The right ventricle: anatomy, physiology and clinical imaging. Heart. 2008;94:1510–5.  https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2007.132779.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Polak JF, Holman L, Wynne J, Colucci WS. Right ventricular ejection fraction: an indicator of increased mortality in patients with congestive heart failure associated with coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1983;2:217–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(83)80156-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shah PK, Maddahi J, Staniloff HM, et al. Variable spectrum and prognostic implications of left and right ventricular ejection fractions in patients with and without clinical heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 1986;58:387–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(86)90001-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mendes LA, Dec GW, Picard MH, Palacios IF, Newell J, Davidoff R. Right ventricular dysfunction: an independent predictor of adverse outcome in patients with myocarditis. Am Heart J. 1994;128:301–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Warnes CA. Adult congenital heart disease importance of the right ventricle. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:1903–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.06.048.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Groote P, Millaire A, Foucher-Hossein C, et al. Right ventricular ejection fraction is an independent predictor of survival in patients with moderate heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32:948–54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(98)00337-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kossaify A. Echocardiographic assessment of the right ventricle, from the conventional approach to speckle tracking and three-dimensional imaging, and insights into the “right way” to explore the forgotten chamber. Clin Med Insights Cardiol. 2015;9:65–75.  https://doi.org/10.4137/CMC.S27462. eCollection 2015.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mertens LL, Friedberg MK. Imaging the right ventricle-current state of the art. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2010;7:551–63.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2010.118. Epub 2010 Aug 10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Valsangiacomo Buechel ER, Mertens LL. Imaging the right heart: the use of integrated multimodality imaging. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:949–60.  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehr490.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Portnoy SG, Rudski LG. Echocardiographic evaluation of the right ventricle: a 2014 perspective. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2015;17:21.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-015-0578-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Galiè N, Humbert M, Vachiery JL, et al. 2015 ESC/ERS Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension: The Joint Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS): Endorsed by: Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC), International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT). Eur Heart J. 2016;37:67–119.  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv317.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoeper MM, Bogaard HJ, Condliffe R, et al. Definitions and diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(25 Suppl):D42–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.10.032.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Farber HW, Miller DP, Poms AD, et al. Five-year outcomes of patients enrolled in the REVEAL Registry. Chest. 2015;148:1043–54.  https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.15-0300.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rich S, Dantzker DR, Ayres SM, et al. Primary pulmonary hypertension. A national prospective study. Ann Intern Med. 1987;107:216–23.  https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-107-2-216.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ascha M, Renapurkar RD, Tonelli AR. A review of imaging modalities in pulmonary hypertension. Ann Thorac Med. 2017;12:61–73.  https://doi.org/10.4103/1817-1737.203742.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Helmberger M, Pienn M, Urschler M, et al. Quantification of tortuosity and fractal dimension of the lung vessels in pulmonary hypertension patients. PLoS One. 2014;9:e87515.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087515.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hopkins N, McLoughlin P. The structural basis of pulmonary hypertension in chronic lung disease: remodelling, rarefaction or angiogenesis? J Anat. 2002;201:335–48.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-7580.2002.00096.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Abel E, Jankowski A, Pison C, Luc Bosson J, Bouvaist H, Ferretti GR. Pulmonary artery and right ventricle assessment in pulmonary hypertension: correlation between functional parameters of ECG-gated CT and right-side heart catheterization. Acta Radiol. 2012;53(7):720.  https://doi.org/10.1258/ar.2012.120009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bolen MA, Renapurkar RD, Popovic ZB, et al. High-pitch ECG-synchronized pulmonary CT angiography versus standard CT pulmonary angiography: a prospective randomized study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201:971–6.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.10597.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kreitner KF. Noninvasive imaging of pulmonary hypertension. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;35:99–111.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1363456.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shimada YJ, Shiota M, Siegel RJ, Shiota T. Accuracy of right ventricular volumes and function determined by three-dimensional echocardiography in comparison with magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2010;23:943–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2010.06.029.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Grewal J, Majdalany D, Syed I, Pellikka P, Warnes CA. Three-dimensional echocardiographic assessment of right ventricular volume and function in adult patients with congenital heart disease: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2010;23:127–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2009.11.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Niemann PS, Pinho L, Balbach T, et al. Anatomically oriented right ventricular volume measurements with dynamic three-dimensional echocardiography validated by 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:1668–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2007.07.031.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Leibundgut G, Rohner A, Grize A, et al. Dynamic assessment of right ventricular volumes and function by realtime three-dimensional echocardiography: a comparison study with magnetic resonance imaging in 100 adult patients. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2010;23:116–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2009.11.016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Grapsa J, O’Regan DP, Pavlopoulos H, et al. Right ventricular remodelling in pulmonary arterial hypertension with threedimensional echocardiography: comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2010;11:64–73.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ejechocard/jep169.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rudski LG, Lai WW, Afilalo J, et al. Guidelines for the echocardiographic assessment of the right heart in adults: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography endorsed by the European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, and the Canadian Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2010;23:685–713.; quiz 786–788.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2010.05.010.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lopez L, Colan SD, Frommelt PC, et al. Recommendations for quantification methods during the performance of a pediatric echocardiogram: a report from the Pediatric Measurements Writing Group of the American Society of Echocardiography Pediatric and Congenital Heart Disease Council. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2010;23:465–95; quiz 576–577.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2010.03.019.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wittram C, Maher MM, Yoo AJ, Kalra MK, Shepard JA, McLoud TC. CT angiography of pulmonary embolism: diagnostic criteria and causes of misdiagnosis. Radiographics. 2004;24:1219–38.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.245045008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Righini M, Le GG, Aujesky D, et al. Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism by multidetector CT alone or combined with venous ultrasonography of the leg: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2008;371:1343–52.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60594-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ghanima W, Almaas V, Aballi S, et al. Management of suspected pulmonary embolism [PE] by D-dimer and multislice computed tomography in outpatients: an outcome study. J Thromb Haemost. 2005;3:1926–32.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2005.01544.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mos IC, Klok FA, Kroft LJ, DE RA, Dekkers OM, Huisman MV. Safety of ruling out acute pulmonary embolism by normal computed tomography pulmonary angiography in patients with an indication for computed tomography: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost. 2009;7:1491–8.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2009.03518.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Carrier M, Righini M, Wells PS, et al. Subsegmental pulmonary embolism diagnosed by computed tomography: incidence and clinical implications. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the management outcome studies. J Thromb Haemost. 2010;8:1716–22.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2010.03938.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kaur M, Vijayananthan A, Kumar G, Jayarani K, Ng KH, Sun Z. Use of 100 kV versus 120 kV in computed tomography pulmonary angiography in the detection of pulmonary embolism: effect on radiation dose and image quality. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2015;5:524–33.  https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2223-4292.2015.04.04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sun Z, Almoudi M, Cao Y. CT angiography in the diagnosis of cardiovascular disease: a transformation in cardiovascular CT practice. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2014;4:376–96.  https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2223-4292.2014.10.02.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Aldosari S, Almoudi M, Sun Z. Double-low dose protocol of CT pulmonary angiography in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: a feasible approach for reduction of both contrast medium and radiation dose. Heart Res Open J. 2017;4:33–8.  https://doi.org/10.17140/HROJ-4-139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lu G, Luo S, Meinel FG, et al. High-pitch computed tomography pulmonary angiography with iterative reconstruction at 80 kVp and 20 ml contrast agent volume. Eur Radiol. 2014;24:3260–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3365-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Boos J, Kropil P, Lanzman RS, et al. CT pulmonary angiography: simultaneous low-pitch dual-source acquisition mode with 70 kVp and 40 ml of contrast medium and comparison with high-pitch spiral dual-source acquisition with automated tube potential selection. Br J Radiol. 2016;89:20151059.  https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20151059.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Laqmani A, Kurfurst M, Butscheidt S, et al. CT pulmonary angiography at reduced radiation exposure and contrast material volume using iterative model reconstruction and iDose4 technique in comparison to FBP. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0162429.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162429.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Laqmani A, Regier M, Veldhoen S, et al. Improved image quality and low radiation dose with hybrid iterative reconstruction with 80 kV CT pulmonary angiography. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:1962–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.06.016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    British Thoracic Society Standards of Care Committee Pulmonary Embolism Guideline Development Group. British Thoracic Society guidelines for the management of suspected acute pulmonary embolism. Thorax. 2003;58:470–83.  https://doi.org/10.1136/thorax.58.6.470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hartmann I, Hagen P, Melissant C, et al. Diagnosing acute pulmonary embolism: effect of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on the performance of D-dimer testing, ventilation/perfusion scintigraphy, spiral computed tomographic angiography, and conventional angiography. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;162:2232–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Forbes KP, Reid JH, Murchison JT. Do preliminary chest X-ray findings define the optimum role of pulmonary scintigraphy in suspected pulmonary embolism? Clin Radiol. 2001;56:397–400.  https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm.162.6.2006030.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sadigh G, Kelly AM, Cronin P. Challenges, controversies, and hot topics in pulmonary embolism imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:497–515.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.5830.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lam KY, Dickens P, Chan ACL. Tumors of the heart – a 20-year experience with a review of 12485 consecutive autopsies. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1993;117:1027–31.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Maleszewski JJ, Anavekar NS, Moynihan TJ, Klarich KW. Pathology, imaging, and treatment of cardiac tumours. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2017;14:536–49.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2017.47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sheppard MN, Mohiaddin R. Tumors of the heart. Futur Cardiol. 2010;6:181–93.  https://doi.org/10.2217/fca.09.62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Jain S, Maleszewski JJ, Stephenson CR, Klarich KW. Current diagnosis and management of cardiac myxomas. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2015;13:369–75.  https://doi.org/10.1586/14779072.2015.1024108.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Anavekar NS, Bonnichsen CR, Foley TA, et al. Computed tomography of cardiac pseudotumors and neoplasms. Radiol Clin N Am. 2010;48:799–816.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2010.04.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Araoz PA, Eklund HE, Welch TJ, Breen JF. CT and MR imaging of primary cardiac malignancies. Radiographics. 1999;19:1421–34.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.19.6.g99no031421.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Dolk H, Loane M, Garne E, European Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies (EUROCAT) Working Group. Congenital heart defects in Europe: prevalence and perinatal mortality, 2000 to 2005. Circulation. 2011;123:841–9.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.958405.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    van der Linde D, Konings EE, Slager MA, et al. Birth prevalence of congenital heart disease worldwide: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:2241–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.025.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Yeh SJ, Chen HC, Lu CW, et al. Prevalence, mortality, and the disease burden of pediatric congenital heart disease in Taiwan. Pediatr Neonatol. 2013;54:113–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedneo.2012.11.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Tse KS, Ip JJK, Leong LLY. Imaging of congenital heart disease in Hong Kong: from invasive to non-invasive cardiac imaging. CVIA. 2017;1:124–32.  https://doi.org/10.22468/cvia.2016.00122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Sun RR, Liu M, Lu L, Zheng Y, Zhang P. Congenital heart disease: causes, diagnoses, symptoms and treatments. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2015;72:857–60.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12013-015-0551-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Zaver AG, Nadas AS. Five congenital cardiac defects: study of their profile and natural history. Atrial septal defect—secundum type. Circulation. 1965;31(Suppl III):III-24–32.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Danford DA, Gumbiner CH, Martin AB, Fletcher SE. Effects of electrocardiography and chest radiography on the accuracy of preliminary diagnosis of common congenital cardiac defects. Pediatr Cardiol. 2000;21:334–40.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002460010075.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rodes-Cabau J, Taramasso M, O’Gara PT. Diagnosis and treatment of tricuspid valve disease: current and future perspectives. Lancet. 2016;388:2431–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00740-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Fawzy H, Fukamachi K, Mazer CD, et al. Complete mapping of the tricuspid valve apparatus using three-dimensional sonomicrometry. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;141:1037–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2010.05.039.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Rodes-Cabau J, Hahn RT, Latib A, et al. Transcatheter therapies for treating tricuspid regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:1825–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2016.01.063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Nath J, Foster E, Heidenreich PA. Impact of tricuspid regurgitation on long-term survival. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:405–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2003.09.036.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F, et al. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012). Eur Heart J. 2012;33:2451–96.  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehs109.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Tretter JT, Sarwak AE, Anderson PH, Spicer DE. Assessment of the anatomical variation to be found in the normal tricuspid valve. Clin Anat. 2016;29:399–407.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.22591.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Martinez RM, O’Leary PW, Anderson RH. Anatomy and echocardiography of the normal and abnormal tricuspid valve. Cardiol Young. 2006;16(Suppl 3):4–11.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047951106000709.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Fawzy ME, Mercer EN, Dunn B, al-Amri M, Andaya W. Doppler echocardiography in the evaluation of tricuspid stenosis. Eur Heart J. 1989;10:985–90.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.eurheartj.a059423.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Perez J, Ludbrook P, Ahumada G. Usefulness of Doppler echocardiography in detecting tricuspid valve stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 1985;55:601–3.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(85)90266.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Xiong TY, Zheng MX, Wei X, et al. Hemodynamic changes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation during sequential follow-ups in patients with bicuspid aortic valve compared with tricuspid aortic valve. Cardiol J. 2017;24:350–7.  https://doi.org/10.5603/CJ.a2017.0020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Nesser HJ, Tkalec W, Patel AR, et al. Quantitation of right ventricular volumes and ejection fraction by three-dimensional echocardiography in patients: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging and radionuclide ventriculography. Echocardiography. 2006;23:666–80.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8175.2006.00286.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Anwar AM, Soliman OI, Nemes A, van Geuns RJ, Geleijnse ML, Ten Cate FJ. Value of assessment of tricuspid annulus: real-time three-dimensional echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2007;23:701–5.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-006-9206-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Sugeng L, Mor-Avi V, Weinert L, et al. Multimodality comparison of quantitative volumetric analysis of the right ventricle. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3:10–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Ling LF, Marwick TH. Echocardiographic assessment of right ventricular function: how to account for tricuspid regurgitation and pulmonary hypertension. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5:747–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2011.08.026.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    van Rosendael PJ, Joyce E, Katsanos S, et al. Tricuspid valve remodelling in functional tricuspid regurgitation: multidetector row computed tomography insights. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;17:96–105.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jev140.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Lee JW, Song JM, Park JP, Lee JW, Kang DH, Song JK. Long-term prognosis of isolated signifi cant tricuspid regurgitation. Circ J. 2010;74:375–80.  https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.CJ-09-0679.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    D’Alfonso A, Scioti G, Milano A. Images in cardiovascular medicine. Combined aortic and pulmonary stenosis in a 79-year-old man. Ital Heart J. 2000;1:848.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Bonow R, Carabello B, Kanu C, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, et al. ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing Committee to Revise the 1998 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease): developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists: endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation. 2006;114:e84–e231.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.176857.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Zoghbi WA, Enriquez-Sarano M, Foster E, et al. Recommendations for evaluation of the severity of native valvular regurgitation with twodimensional and Doppler echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2003;16:777–802.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0894-7317(03)00335-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Groves P, Lewis N, Ikram S, Maire R, Hall R. Reduced exercise capacity in patients with tricuspid regurgitation after successful mitral valve replacement for rheumatic mitral valve disease. Br Heart J. 1991;66:295–301.  https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.66.4.295.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Geva T. Repaired tetralogy of Fallot: the roles of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in evaluating pathophysiology and for pulmonary valve replacement decision support. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2011;13:9.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1532-429X-13-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Pennell DJ, Sechtem UP, Higgins CB, European Society of cardiology; Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, et al. Clinical indications for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR): Consensus Panel report. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2004;6:727–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Mercer-Rosa L, Yang W, Kutty S, et al. Quantifying pulmonary regurgitation and right ventricular function in surgically repaired tetralogy of Fallot: a comparative analysis of echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5:637–43.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.112.972588.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medical Radiation SciencesCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyBeijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations