To Cath or Not to Cath, That Is the Question? Towards a Minimally Invasive Pre-Glenn Assessment

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.
Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background: Routine cardiac catheterization has traditionally been considered mandatory prior to the bidirectional Glenn procedure in patients with single-ventricle physiology, aiming to assess pulmonary artery anatomy, pulmonary pressures, and ventricular filling. However, invasive assessment carries procedural risk and cumulative radiation exposure, while advances in non-invasive imaging have challenged this paradigm. Main Body: This review synthesizes historical practice, contemporary evidence, and evolving guideline recommendations regarding pre-Glenn assessment. Landmark randomized data, most notably from Brown et al., demonstrated that cardiac magnetic resonance provides equivalent surgical decision-making and early outcomes compared with routine catheterization, while significantly reducing adverse events, hospital stay, and cost. Subsequent institutional experiences and international guidelines (2020–2023) have reinforced a selective approach, favoring non-invasive imaging—particularly cardiac magnetic resonance —unless an intervention is anticipated or non-invasive findings are equivocal. Furthermore, we propose a phenotype-guided strategy for a subset of patients with favorable ventricular morphology and shunt-dependent pulmonary blood flow, in whom targeted echocardiography with adjunctive computed tomography angiography may suffice. Conclusion: Accumulating evidence supports a shift from universal invasive assessment toward individualized, risk-stratified pre-Glenn evaluation. A selective imaging-driven strategy may safely reduce procedural burden while preserving diagnostic accuracy in carefully chosen patients.

Article activity feed