As I have described in the introductions to our previously published supplements, Florida is the fourth largest state in the USA. Our “Heart Week” is a joint collaborative project sponsored by The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and The Congenital Heart Institute of Florida. The cardiac programme at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia is one of the largest and most prestigious in the world. Our programme at the Congenital Heart Institute is the largest providing services for patients with congenital cardiac disease in Florida. Both institutions are very grateful to Bob Anderson, and the team at Cardiology in the Young, for their support of “Heart Week”, and for the opportunity to publish this particular Supplement. In February 2005, Bob was a valued faculty member, and tremendous supporter, of both the Fifth Annual International Symposium on Congenital Heart Disease held at All Children's Hospital and University of South Florida, and the Eighth Annual Update on Pediatric Cardiovascular Disease arranged by Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

Hearts which, at first sight, seem to have a solitary chamber within their ventricular mass have long been the subject of controversy. As difficult as it is to manage these cardiac malformations medically and surgically, it has been at least as challenging, to date, merely to describe and classify them. Even the most commonly used terms, “single ventricle” and “univentricular heart”, spark heated debate. In distant times, when congenitally malformed hearts were pathological curiosities, these entities were described as “cor triloculare biatriale”. Therein lies the beginning of the problem, since when hearts of this type were examined by more enlightened pathologists, such as the great Maude Abbott,1 it became plain that the apparently solitary ventricular mass in reality possessed a second, albeit much smaller, chamber. Abbott described this second structure as the “outlet chamber”. This convention of describing a “single ventricle”, albeit with a co-existing “outlet chamber”, that presumably lacked ventricular status, continued throughout the first half of the twentieth century, although it had been recognised by then that hearts could rarely be found with truly solitary ventricles, and these were typically deemed to be common structures. Van Praagh et al.2 neatly summarised the problem with this approach when they pointed out that the so-called “single ventricle” possessed two ventricular chambers, whilst the “common ventricle” described the truly solitary arrangement. In their seminal investigation of 1964, Van Praagh et al.2 analysed only those hearts unified because of double inlet atrioventricular connection, or alignment. They excluded arbitrarily from their investigation all hearts with atrioventricular valvar atresia, despite the similarity in morphology between many of these latter lesions and the hearts with double inlet.3

The nomenclature and classification of patients with a functionally univentricular heart has been debated for decades. We review here the approach taken for dealing with this group of patients by the International Working Group for Mapping and Coding of Nomenclatures for Paediatric and Congenital Cardiac Disease. We discuss the approach of this Nomenclature Working Group in the context of other historical and contemporary ideas about this topic.

In the past, hearts with double inlet ventricle have been amongst the most contentious of congenital cardiac malformations. This is because, although most examples found with this particular atrioventricular connection have one big and one small chamber within the ventricular mass, for many years the variant most frequently encountered, with a dominant left ventricle, was usually described as exhibiting a single ventricle.1 With the recognition that, in this particular variant, the small chamber is an incomplete right ventricle, and is never capable of supporting independently the pulmonary circulation, the anatomic situation has now been clarified, as explained in the previous review,2 by recognising that the arrangement produces a functionally single ventricle, and that almost always patients with this lesion, if treated surgically, will be converted to the Fontan circulation. Even though, nonetheless, most patients with all variants of double inlet ventricle will likely end up with the Fontan circulation, it remains necessary to identify the functionally significant variants, namely those to be found in ventricular morphology, atrioventricular valvar morphology, ventriculo-arterial connections, and associated malformations.3

As we described in the previous review,1 double inlet ventricle is usually found with the atrial chambers connected to a dominant left ventricle, less frequently to a dominant right ventricle, and rarely to a solitary and indeterminate ventricle. As we have also discussed in this supplement,2 double inlet to the left ventricle was, for many years, considered the exemplar of so-called “single ventricle”, despite the fact that such patients unequivocally possess one big and one small ventricle. Echocardiographic interrogation has served to resolve this controversy, showing that such patients make up a significant proportion of those having functionally univentricular hearts. Such echocardiographic investigation has also served to resolve similar controversies regarding patients having tricuspid atresia. For some time, it was argued that patients with tricuspid atresia also had “univentricular hearts”,3 but the logic used to underscore this approach was just as flawed as that used to justify the use of “single ventricle” in patients with double inlet atrioventricular connection.4,5 The increasing use of the Fontan procedure has served to demonstrate that these patients, along with many having mitral atresia in the setting of hypoplastic left heart syndrome, also have functionally univentricular arrangements. As we will show in this review, however, the anatomical substrates found in patients with atrioventricular valvar atresia are much more complex than those seen in the setting of double inlet ventricle. This is because atrioventricular valvar atresia can be produced either by absence of one atrioventricular connection, or by presence of an imperforate valvar membranes closing completely one or other of the two normal atrioventricular junctions. This important difference, combined with multiple segmental combinations, produces a bewildering array of potential anatomical substrates, with the complications magnified by the fact that, when one atrioventricular connection is absent, the other atrioventricular junction can be shared between the two ventricles, the so-called uniatrial and biventricular arrangement.6 In our review, we will first describe the anatomical options, before concentrating our attention on the more frequent patterns seen in clinical practice.

It has long been known that the most complex combinations of cardiac malformations are those found in the setting of the so-called “splenic syndromes”.1 Many aspects of these syndromes have been controversial over recent years, not least the presence or absence of features of isomerism within the heart.2,3 Recent experience with genetic manipulation of mice, nonetheless, has now shown that it is possible to generate unequivocal evidence of cardiac isomerism, particularly in those animals which show features of right isomerism when the genes responsible for morphologically leftness are knocked out.4 Furthermore, when the crucial philosophical principle known as the “morphological method”5 is applied to the hearts of patients known to have visceral heterotaxy, it is equally clear that patients falling within these groups, when judged on the extent of the pectinate muscles relative to the atrioventricular junctions, exhibit isomerism of either the morphologically right or left atrial appendages.3

Various physiologic mechanisms have been proposed to account for the development of hypoplasia of the left heart. The mechanism thus far most widely accepted suggests that the entity starts as severe or critical aortic stenosis during fetal gestation. Obstruction at the level of the abnormal aortic valve is then held to increase left ventricular afterload, resulting in decreased systolic and diastolic function. Shunting across the patent oval foramen is then reversed, so that blood flows from left to right. This reversal of flow during fetal gestation decreases the volume of blood crossing the mitral valve, thus decreasing the further potential for growth of the left ventricle.1 Additional support for this postulated physiologic mechanism was provided with the advent of fetal echocardiography during the 1980s.2–4 It was the group of Allan, working at Guy's Hospital in London, which first documented the fetal development of hypoplasia of the left heart by serial echocardiographic observation.4 In their retrospective study of 7000 pregnancies, 462 fetuses were diagnosed to have a structural cardiac defect at the time of the initial echocardiogram. Among those, 28 patients had dilated and dysfunctional left ventricles and aortic valves. The majority of these patients were also found to have concomitant endocardial fibroelastosis. Out of 15 patients in the series who were followed with serial echocardiograms, five progressed to develop hypoplasia of the left heart. With echocardiographic technology undergoing refinement over the same period, it was during this era that the first fetal cardiac intervention was performed using echocardiographic guidance.2,5,6 With still further technologic advances, fetal diagnosis of hypoplasia of the left heart can now be made as early as 13 weeks gestational age.7 One entity which is frequently associated with the hypoplastic left ventricle and aortic stenosis is endocardial fibroelastosis. There is an overlap of pathology between these three entities.8–10 In this report, we describe our own experience in intervention in a fetus suspected of developing hypoplasia of the left heart.

The patient with a functionally univentricular heart is at increased risk for ventricular dysfunction for a variety of reasons. At birth, the pulmonary and systemic circulations are in parallel, leading to pulmonary overcirculation and a volume-loaded functional ventricle. Significant atrioventricular valvar regurgitation, abnormal ventriculoarterial coupling, diastolic dysfunction, and altered ventricular geometry can also contribute to long-term ventricular dysfunction. These collected circumstances place the patient at increased risk for perioperative morbidity and mortality. We will discuss in this review the pathophysiology that leads to ventricular dysfunction at each stage of surgical palliation, as well as the strategies for perioperative management. In addition, we will highlight novel strategies for management of ventricular dysfunction.

Children with a functionally single ventricle constitute just over 1% of congenital cardiac defects.1 A majority of children with the functionally univentricular circulation undergo a three-staged reconstruction to achieve completion of the Fontan circulation. The first stage is usually performed in the neonatal period, and is either banding of the pulmonary trunk, an aorto-pulmonary shunt alone, or the shunt included as part of the first stage of reconstruction. In recent years, a conduit placed from the right ventricle to the pulmonary arteries is being used as an alternate source of flow of blood to the lungs. The second stage is the bidirectional cavopulmonary anastomosis, the two surgical variations being the so-called “hemifontan”, and “bidirectional Glenn” procedures, while the third stage is the completion of the Fontan circulation, the two surgical variations being either construction of a lateral tunnel, or placement of an extra-cardiac conduit, each being possible with or without a fenestration. In many centres, patients with the functionally univentricular circulation make up one-fifth of the total surgical volume. The syndrome of low cardiac output is quite common in this population through all three stages of reconstruction, and some of these patients will eventually require cardiac transplantation. While conventional therapy, with inotropic support and afterload reduction, remains the mainstay of therapy for the failing heart in children, mechanical support is being increasingly used.3 Most of this experience is limited to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.2–5 In this review, we discuss the current experiences with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with a functionally univentricular circulation, and describes some of their unique features. We also focus on the pulsatile ventricular assist devices capable of providing support over the longer term, and other new devices that may have a role in the future in these patients.6

For children with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, contemporary management over three stages includes a window of high risk for sudden death between the initial stage of palliation, the Norwood operation itself, and the second stage, creation of the bidirectional superior cavopulmonary connection. The risk is highest at a time when patients have been discharged from the hospital to grow and prepare for the second stage,1–4 and has persisted despite the remarkable improvements in immediate postoperative and hospital survival after the initial surgery.5,6 Potential contributing factors to the increased vulnerability to sudden death between the stages include the limited circulatory reserve inherent in the parallel circulations supported by a functionally univentricular heart, the reliance on a prosthetic shunt which is susceptible to thrombosis, and congenital or acquired anatomical cardiovascular abnormalities such as aortic atresia, residual obstruction in the aortic arch, tricuspid valvar insufficiency, or right ventricular dysfunction.7–12

It was in 1971, Fontan and Baudet1 published their experience using a surgical procedure to restore a physiologic circulation in three patients with tricuspid atresia. Of the three patients, two survived, thus ushering a new era in the treatment of children with complex forms of congenital cardiac disease. This operation itself, however, was the culmination of a series of experimental and clinical observations that underlined the clinical possibility totally to bypass the right side of the heart.

The heterotaxy syndromes are characterized by a high incidence of cardiac anomalies of extreme heterogeneity. Due to this, the surgical management is varied and challenging. Although a minority of patients can undergo biventricular repair, the complexity of the cardiac defects, and the high incidence of ventricular hypoplasia, mandate a surgical approach in the majority of patients depending on the creation of a functionally univentricular heart. Traditionally, the functionally univentricular approach was associated with a high mortality. More recently, the results have been improving as a result of better understanding of these malformations, and logical improvements in surgical technique. In this review, we will make brief comments on the nomenclature and classification of the heterotaxy syndromes, and the range of cardiac anomalies, before concentrating on the surgical treatment for those patients having functionally univentricular hearts in the setting of heterotaxy. More specifically, we will review initial palliation in early life, creation of the cavopulmonary anastomoses, including the Kawashima procedure and the Fontan circulation, and the role of transplantation.

The recent significant reduction in operative mortality associated with surgical completion of the Fontan circulation is clearly multi-factorial. Better understanding of the fundamental physiological and anatomical issues have led to refinements in operative technique, early neutralization of potential risk factors, widespread use of a staged approach, and selective application of the concept of fenestration or incomplete partitioning. While further reduction of operative mortality is important, and may be anticipated in the future, major emphasis now must be placed on optimizing functional outcome, and understanding and managing the late complications associated with the unique physiology produced by the Fontan circulation.

Many patients with a functional univentricular heart were treated in the 1970s and 1980s, using an atriopulmonary connection to create the Fontan circulation.1–3 Although this procedure, in many patients, was initially successful, and provided arterial saturations of oxygen close to normal, as these patients were followed over the years, in some cases they developed significant complications. One complication of the atriopulmonary connection is progressive right atrial dilation, which leads to atrial arrhythmias, such as atrial flutter or fibrillation.4,5 The combination of these two problems leads to low cardiac output, diminished quality of life, and poor categorization within the classification of the New York Heart Association. This, and other issues, has led most centres to abandon the atriopulmonary connection as a means of creating the Fontan circulation in favour of the lateral tunnel with cavopulmonary connections,6 or the extracardiac conduit.7

Over a decade ago, I co-authored a review in Cardiology in the Young regarding neurological outcomes following surgery for congenital cardiac disease.1 In that review, I placed much emphasis on the conduct of cardiopulmonary bypass, and its role in neurodevelopmental disabilities. Much has been learned in the intervening years regarding the multifactorial causes of abnormal school-age development, in particular, the role of prenatal, perioperative, socioeconomic, and genetic influences. In this update, I will highlight some of the recent advances in our understanding of the protean causes of neurological, behavioral, and developmental abnormalities in children and young adults with complex forms of congenital cardiac disease. In addition, I will summarize the current data on patients at particular high-risk for adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes, specifically those with a functionally univentricular heart who have had staged reconstruction with ultimate conversion to the Fontan circulation.