Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T22:12:06.448Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Interrupted aorta diagnosed in a 51-year-old woman

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2013

Nik Stoyanov*
Affiliation:
Department of Cardiology, Royal Perth Hospital, Wellington Street, Perth, Western Australia
Andrew Bullock
Affiliation:
Department of Cardiology, Adult Congenital Cardiac Centre, Royal Perth Hospital, Wellington Street, Perth, Western Australia
Matthew Erickson
Affiliation:
Department of Cardiology, Royal Perth Hospital, Wellington Street, Perth, Western Australia
*
Correspondence to: N. Stoyanov, Department of Electrophysiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, 40 Ruskin street, Ottawa, Ontario K1S2S8, Canada. Tel: +618 92242244; Fax: +618 92243175; E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

A 51-year-old lady presented with increasing heart failure symptoms and palpitations. She had recently been diagnosed with a congenital ventricular septal defect, bicuspid aortic valve, and Eisenmenger’s syndrome. There was clinical evidence of right heart failure and differential clubbing and cyanosis affecting the feet but not hands. A cardiac magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated interruption of the aortic arch beyond the left subclavian artery, with the descending aorta perfused entirely through a large patent ductus arteriosus.

Type
Brief Reports
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Silva, FG, Nunes, MAS, Ferreira, M, Pedro, A, Uva, MS, Macalhaes, MP. Interrupted aortic arch: an 8 year experience. Revista Porteguesa de Cardiologia 2008; 27: 795801.Google Scholar
2. Dillman, JR, Yarram, SG, D’Amico, AR, Hernandez, RJ. Interrupted aortic arch, a spectrum of MRI findings. Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190: 14671474.Google Scholar