You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Epilogue
Common congenital cardiac disease with uncommon postoperative complication
  1. Chris Oakley,
  2. Sarita Makam,
  3. Yee Mon Aung,
  4. Suhair Shebani
  1. Paediatric Cardiology Department, Glenfield Hospital, Leicester, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Chris Oakley, Paediatric Cardiology Department, Glenfield Hospital, Groby Road, Leicester LE3 9QP, UK; chris.a.oakley{at}btinternet.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2016-311497

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    A boy was born at term, in good condition, with an antenatal cardiac diagnosis. The diagnosis was confirmed on echocardiography. Initial genetic bloods were taken including karyotype and fluorescence in situ hybridisation and he was discharged with outpatient follow-up.

    He was reviewed in clinic at 5 months of age. On examination, his saturations were 85% with a normal first heart sound, soft second heart sound and a loud ejection systolic murmur. The bloods showed a normal karyotype and 22q11 status.

    Following a local joint cardiac meeting he was accepted for surgical repair. Figures 1 and 2 are his preoperative and postoperative chest radiographs (CXRs).

    Figure 1

    Preoperative chest radiograph.

    Figure 2

    Chest radiograph taken first day postoperatively.

    Questions

    1. What is the most likely underlying cardiac diagnosis?

    2. What potentially life-threatening presentation of this condition needs to be monitored for before surgical correction?

    3. What is the most prominent complication that is seen on the postoperative CXR?

    4. What are the management options for this?

    Answers to the questions are on page …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors CO wrote the article, overseen by the consultant SS and registrar YMA. SS also worked with SM to create the local guideline policy for the treatment of spells which is used in the paper and SM helped to write this section of the final paper.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.