Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:10:44.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Post-mortem magnetic resonance imaging provides the diagnosis following aortic rupture in an infant with treated aortic interruption

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2006

Andrew M. Taylor ,
Rod Jones  and
Graham Derrick
Andrew M. Taylor
Affiliation:
Cardiothoracic Unit, Institute of Child Health & Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, United Kingdom
Rod Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Institute of Child Health & Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, United Kingdom
Graham Derrick
Affiliation:
Cardiothoracic Unit, Institute of Child Health & Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, United Kingdom
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the United Kingdom, there has been a steady decline in the number of conventional autopsies performed in children. For cardiovascular disease, structural and not pathological considerations are often more important in defining the cause of death. Magnetic resonance imaging is now often used in the assessment of congenital cardiac malformations during life. In this case report, we demonstrate how post-mortem magnetic resonance imaging was able to establish the diagnosis of aortic rupture in a patient who had undergone surgical repair of aortic interruption. In this patient, the parents had declined conventional histopathological autopsy, but were happy to consent to magnetic resonance post-mortem assessment.

Keywords

Necroscopynon-invasive imagingcongenital cardiac diseasegreat vessels
Type
Brief Report
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , January 2006 , pp. 81 - 83
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

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

Joint Working Party of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and Royal College of Pathologists. Report on fetal and perinatal pathology. London, RCOG, 1988.
Gordijn SJ, Erwich JHM, Khong TY. Value of the perinatal autopsy: Critique. Pediatr Dev Pathol 2002; 5: 480–488.Google Scholar
Gatzoulis MA, Sheppard MN, Ho SY. Value and impact of necropsy in paediatric cardiology. Heart 1996; 75: 626–631.Google Scholar
Cartlidge PHT, Dawson AT, Stewart JH, Vujanic GM. Value and quality of perinatal and infant postmortem examinations: Cohort analysis of 400 consecutive deaths. BMJ 1995; 3: 155–158.Google Scholar
O'Grady G. Death of the teaching autopsy. BMJ 2003; 327: 802–804.Google Scholar
Redfern M. The Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital Inquiry. HMSO, London, 2000. (http://www.rlcinquiry.org.uk)
Parker A. Less invasive autopsy: The place of magnetic resonance imaging. http://www.publications.doh.gov.uk/cmo/progress/organretention/mri_report.pdf
Brookes JAS, Hall-Craggs MA, Sams VR, Lees WR. Non-invasive necropsy by magnetic resonance imaging. Lancet 1996; 348: 1139–1141.Google Scholar
Woodward PJ, Sohaey R, Harris DP, et al. Postmortem fetal MR imaging: Comparison with findings at autopsy. AJR 1997; 168: 41–46.Google Scholar
Huisman TAGM, Wisser, Stallmach T, Krestin GP, Huch R, Kubik-Huch RA. MR autopsy in fetuses. Fetal Diagn Ther 2002; 17: 58–64.Google Scholar