Table 2.
Comparisons | Rho | P Value | Comparisons | Rho | P Value | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
18−22 wk | |||||||
1 y FU | Last FU | ||||||
Z‐fPV vs Z‐AoV | −0.18 | .142 | Z‐fPV vs Z‐oV | −0.10 | .370 | ||
Z‐fPV vs Z‐NAoR | −0.27 | .027 | Z‐fPV vs Z‐NAoR | −0.29 | .009 | ||
Z‐fPV vs Z‐STjunction | −0.09 | .491 | Z‐fPV vs Z‐STjunction | 0.01 | .949 | ||
Z‐fAoV vs Z‐AoV | −0.35 | .002 | Z‐fAoV vs Z‐AoV | −0.21 | .062 | ||
Z‐fAoV vs Z‐NAoR | −0.16 | .171 | Z‐fAoV vs Z‐NAoR | −0.12 | .338 | ||
Z‐fAoV vs Z‐STjunction | −0.09 | .501 | Z‐fAoV vs Z‐STjunction | −0.03 | .794 | ||
26−30 wk | |||||||
1 y FU | Last FU | ||||||
Z‐fPV vs Z‐AoV | −0.31 | .020 | Z‐fPV vs Z‐AoV | −0.32 | .008 | ||
Z‐fPV vs Z‐NAoR | −0.28 | .035 | Z‐fPV vs Z‐NAoR | −0.49 | <.001 | ||
Z‐fPV vs Z‐STjunction | −0.20 | .150 | Z‐fPV vs Z‐STjunction | −0.39 | .019 | ||
Z‐fAoV vs Z‐AoV | −0.31 | .019 | Z‐fAoV vs Z‐AoV | −0.29 | .016 | ||
Z‐fAoV vs Z‐NAoR | −0.13 | .333 | Z‐fAoV vs Z‐NAoR | −0.35 | .003 | ||
Z‐fAoV vs Z‐STjunction | −0.08 | .574 | Z‐fAoV vs Z‐STjunction | −0.10 | .441 | ||
32−36 wk | |||||||
1 y FU | Last FU | ||||||
Z‐fPV vs Z‐AoV | −0.24 | .054 | Z‐fPV vs Z‐AoV | −0.27 | .024 | ||
Z‐fPV vs Z‐NAoR | −0.24 | .063 | Z‐fPV vs Z‐NAoR | −0.28 | .019 | ||
Z‐fPV vs Z‐STjunction | −0.06 | .658 | Z‐fPV vs Z‐STjunction | −0.11 | .394 | ||
Z‐fAoV vs Z‐AoV | −0.11 | .410 | Z‐fAoV vs Z‐AoV | −0.24 | .056 | ||
Z‐fAoV vs Z‐NAoR | −0.21 | .112 | Z‐fAoV vs Z‐NAoR | −0.17 | .164 | ||
Z‐fAoV vs Z‐STjunction | −0.17 | .228 | Z‐fAoV vs Z‐STjunction | −0.02 | .877 |
Note. Significant results are shown in bold (P < .05). Fetal Z‐scores based on Vigneswaran et al.21
Abbreviations: FU, follow‐up; Z‐AoV, Z‐score of neo‐aortic valve annulus diameter post arterial switch operation; Z‐fAoV, Z‐score of the fetal aortic valve annulus diameter; Z‐fPV, Z‐score of the fetal pulmonary valve annulus diameter; Z‐NAoR, Z‐score of the neo‐aortic root; Z‐STjunction, Z‐score of the sino‐tubular junction.