Acute aortic dissection in the ED: risk factors and predictors for missed diagnosis

A comprehensive exploration of novel biomarkers for the early diagnosis of aortic dissection

Aortic dissection (AD) is a catastrophic life-threatening cardiovascular emergency with a 1-2% per hour mortality rate post-diagnosis, characterized physiologically by the separation of aortic wall layers. AD initially presents as intense pain that can then radiate to the back, arms, neck, or jaw along with neurological deficits like difficulty in speaking, and unilateral weakness in some patients. This spectrum of clinical features associated with AD is often confused with acute myocardial infarction, hence leading to a delay in AD diagnosis. Cardiac and vascular biomarkers are structural proteins and microRNAs circulating in the bloodstream that correlate to tissue damage and their levels become detectable even before symptom onset. Timely diagnosis of AD using biomarkers, in combination with advanced imaging diagnostics, will significantly improve prognosis by allowing earlier vascular interventions. This comprehensive review aims to investigate emerging biomarkers in the diagnosis of AD, as well as provide future directives for creating advanced diagnostic tools and imaging techniques.

Mortality and risk factors associated with misdiagnosis of acute aortic syndrome in Ontario, Canada: a population-based study

INTRODUCTION

Acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is a life-threatening aortic emergency. It describes three diagnoses: acute aortic dissection, acute intramural haematoma and penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer. Unfortunately, there are no accurate estimates of the miss rate for AAS, risk factors for missed diagnosis or its effect on outcomes.

METHODS

A population-based retrospective cohort study of anonymously linked data for residents of Ontario, Canada, was carried out. Incident cases of AAS were identified between 2003 and 2018 using a validated algorithm based on ICD codes and death. Before multivariate modelling, all categorical variables were analysed for an association with missed AAS diagnosis using χ2 tests. These preliminary analyses were unadjusted for clustering or any covariates. Finally, we performed multilevel logistic regression analysis using a generalised linear mixed model approach to model the probability of a missed case occurring.

RESULTS

There were 1299 cases of AAS (age mean (SD) 68.03±14.70, woman 500 (38.5%), rural areas (n=111, 8.55%)) over the study period. Missed cases accounted for 163 (12.5%) of the cohort. Mortality (non-missed AAS 59.7% vs missed AAS 54.6%) and surgical intervention (non-missed AAS 31% vs missed AAS 30.7%) were similar in missed and non-missed cases. However, lower acuity (Canadian triage acuity scale >2 (OR 2.45 95% CI 1.71 to 3.52) (the scale is from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating high acuity) had a higher odds of being a missed case and non-ambulatory presentation (OR 0.47 95% CI 0.33 to 0.67) and presenting to a teaching (OR 0.60 95% CI 0.40 to 0.90)) or cardiac centre (OR 0.41 95% CI 0.27 to 0.62) were associated with a lower odds of being a missed case.

CONCLUSIONS

The high rate of misdiagnosis has remained stable for over a decade. Non-teaching and non-cardiac hospitals had a higher incidence of missed cases. Mortality and rates of surgery were not associated with a missed diagnosis of AAS. Educational interventions should be prioritised in non-teaching hospitals and non-cardiac centres.

The sonographic protocol for the emergent evaluation of aortic dissections (SPEED protocol): A multicenter, prospective, observational study

OBJECTIVES

An aortic dissection (AoD) is a potentially life-threatening emergency with mortality rates exceeding 50%. While computed tomography angiography remains the diagnostic standard, patients may be too unstable to leave the emergency department. Investigators developed a point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) protocol combining transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and the abdominal aorta. The study objective was to determine the test characteristics of this protocol.

METHODS

This was an institutional review board-approved, multicenter, prospective, observational, cohort study of a convenience sample of adult patients. Patients suspected of having an AoD received a TTE and abdominal aorta POCUS. Three sonographic signs suggested AoD: a pericardial effusion, an intimal flap, or an aortic outflow track diameter measuring more than 35 mm. Investigators present continuous and categorical data as medians with interquartile ranges or proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and utilized standard 2 × 2 tables on MedCalc (Version 19.1.6) to calculate test characteristics with 95% CI.

RESULTS

Investigators performed 1314 POCUS examinations, diagnosing 21 Stanford type A and 23 Stanford type B AoD. Forty-one of the 44 cases had at least one of the aforementioned sonographic findings. The protocol has a sensitivity of 93.2% (95% CI 81.3-98.6), specificity of 90.9 (95% CI 89.2-92.5), positive and negative predictive values of 26.3% (95% CI 19.6-33.9) and 99.7% (95% CI 99.2-100), respectively, and an accuracy of 91% (95% CI 89.3-92.5).

CONCLUSIONS

The SPEED protocol has an overall sensitivity of 93.2% for AoD.

A Novel Tool for Distinguishing Type A Acute Aortic Syndrome from Heart Failure and Acute Coronary Syndrome

Type A acute aortic syndrome (urgent AAS, UAAS) has a low incidence and high mortality rate; however, it is often missed or diagnosed late. Our aim was to create a new tool for distinguishing UAAS by using multiple modalities to select patients for CT aortography. This study included 75 patients with UAAS, 77 with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and 81 with heart failure (HF) who received urgent treatment after propensity matching. Specific symptoms, past medical history, mediastinal width, region of interest (ROI) ratio in the lung base/apex, D-dimers, and troponin I were investigated to differentiate UAAS from ACS and HF. The most significant variables were selected to create a new scoring system. The UAAS score exhibited a performance AUC of 0.982. A simple UAAS score >1, excluding ROI ratios in lung base/apex, showed an AUC of 0.977, a sensitivity of 96%, and specificity of 92.41%. The results were validated using an external data set of 292 patients (simple UAAS score > 1: AUC of 0.966, sensitivity 93.33%, and specificity 95.36%). The simple UAAS score may be a valuable tool for suspecting UAAS and may reduce the likelihood of misdiagnosis or performing unnecessary CT aortography.

Evaluation of the Canadian Clinical Practice Guidelines Risk Prediction Tool for Acute Aortic Syndrome: The RIPP Score

Introduction

Acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is a rare clinical syndrome with a high mortality rate. The Canadian clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis of AAS was developed in order to reduce the frequency of misdiagnoses. As part of the guideline, a clinical decision aid was developed to facilitate clinician decision-making (RIPP score). The aim of this study is to validate the diagnostic accuracy of this tool and assess its performance in comparison to other risk prediction tools that have been developed.

Methods

This was a historical case-control study. Consecutive cases and controls were recruited from three academic emergency departments from 2002-2020. Cases were identified through an admission, discharge, or death certificated diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome. Controls were identified through presenting complaint of chest, abdominal, flank, back pain, and/or perfusion deficit. We compared the clinical decision tools' C statistic and used the DeLong method to test for the significance of these differences and report sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

We collected data on 379 cases of acute aortic syndrome and 1340 potential eligible controls; 379 patients were randomly selected from the final population. The RIPP score had a sensitivity of 99.7% (98.54-99.99). This higher sensitivity resulted in a lower specificity (53%) compared to the other clinical decision aids (63-86%). The DeLong comparison of the C statistics found that the RIPP score had a higher C statistic than the ADDRS (-0.0423 (95% confidence interval -0.07-0.02); P < 0.0009) and the AORTAs score (-0.05 (-0.07 to -0.02); P = 0.0002), no difference compared to the Lovy decision tool (0.02 (95% CI -0.01-0.05 P < 0.25)) and decreased compared to the Von Kodolitsch decision tool (0.04 (95% CI 0.01-0.07 P < 0.008)).

Conclusion

The Canadian clinical practice guideline's AAS clinical decision aid is a highly sensitive tool that uses readily available clinical information. It has the potential to improve diagnosis of AAS in the emergency department.

Epidemiology, mortality and miss rate of acute aortic syndrome in Ontario, Canada: a population-based study

INTRODUCTION

Acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is a life-threatening emergency. It describes three distinct diagnoses: acute aortic dissection, acute intramural hematoma and penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer. There are currently no accurate estimates for incidence, mortality or misdiagnosis. Our objectives were to determine the incidence, mortality and miss rate of acute aortic syndrome in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

A population-based retrospective cohort study of anonymously linked data for residents of Ontario, Canada, was carried out. Incident cases of acute aortic syndrome were identified between 2003 and 2018 using a validated algorithm based on ICD-10 codes and death. Incidence (number of cases/population of Ontario), mortality, and miss rate were calculated. Miss rate was defined as when a patient was seen in the ED within 14 days prior to an acute aortic syndrome diagnosis with a presenting complaint consistent with acute aortic syndrome.

RESULTS

There were 1299 cases of acute aortic syndrome over the study period [age mean (SD) 68.03 ± 14.70; female (n = 500, 38.5%); rural areas (n = 111, 8.6%)]. The overall annual incidence for acute aortic syndrome was 0.61 per 100,000. One year mortality decreased from 47.4 to 29.1%. ED mortality was 14.9%. In the 14 days prior to diagnosis 12.5% of patients were seen in the ED with a presentation consistent with acute aortic syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS

Annual incidence of acute aortic syndrome was found to be lower than other population-based studies. Also, the burden of mortality is seen in the ED. Education initiatives should focus on the identification of acute aortic syndrome in the ED to address mortality and miss rate.

Type A Aortic Dissection With Intramural Hematoma: A Challenging Diagnosis

Intramural hematoma (IMH) is considered a part of acute aortic syndromes (AAS), a group of life-threatening aortic diseases with a similar presentation that appears to have different clinical manifestations and pathological and survival characteristics. AAS comprises three major entities, namely, aortic dissection (AD), IMH, and PAU. IMH-like classic AD is classified using Stanford and DeBakey classification systems to indicate the aortic area involved. Early diagnosis and treatment of AAS are crucial for survival; however, diagnosis of IMH may be delayed and challenging due to atypical presentation, investigation findings, and case progression. In this report, we describe a case of delayed and challenging diagnosis of a Stanford type A IMH that was managed surgically with a good outcome.

Cluster-Based Ensemble Learning Model for Aortic Dissection Screening

Aortic dissection (AD) is a rare and high-risk cardiovascular disease with high mortality. Due to its complex and changeable clinical manifestations, it is easily missed or misdiagnosed. In this paper, we proposed an ensemble learning model based on clustering: Cluster Random under-sampling Smote–Tomek Bagging (CRST-Bagging) to help clinicians screen for AD patients in the early phase to save their lives. In this model, we propose the CRST method, which combines the advantages of Kmeans++ and the Smote–Tomek sampling method, to overcome an extremely imbalanced AD dataset. Then we used the Bagging algorithm to predict the AD patients. We collected AD patients’ and other cardiovascular patients’ routine examination data from Xiangya Hospital to build the AD dataset. The effectiveness of the CRST method in resampling was verified by experiments on the original AD dataset. Our model was compared with RUSBoost and SMOTEBagging on the original dataset and a test dataset. The results show that our model performed better. On the test dataset, our model’s precision and recall rates were 83.6% and 80.7%, respectively. Our model’s F1-score was 82.1%, which is 4.8% and 1.6% higher than that of RUSBoost and SMOTEBagging, which demonstrates our model’s effectiveness in AD screening.

[Acute Aortic Dissection: A Life-Threatening Disease Also in Neurological Emergency Medicine]

Acute aortic dissection is rare but life-threatening. The symptoms depend on the localization and reduced perfusion of the downstream organs or limbs and are therefore variable. Neurological symptoms may occur that do not immediately lead to a diagnosis and thus delay the necessary therapy. Knowing the early symptoms and warning signs of aortic dissection is therefore also crucial in neurological emergency care for quickly identifying the affected patients and for providing acute therapy. A misdiagnosis with delayed initiation of therapy can significantly worsen the patient's outcome. This study aims to establish a standardized diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm for suspected acute aortic dissection in neurological emergency care. Close interdisciplinary cooperation is mandatory.

Incidental Finding of an Extensive Type B Aortic Dissection Extending to the Iliac Arteries

An aortic dissection is a life-threatening event that requires urgent evaluation. A dissection is defined as a tear in the innermost layer of the aortic wall forming a true and false lumen. This is normally diagnosed with a CT with contrast when clinical suspicion is present. Deciding whether urgent surgical intervention is required is key, as it may determine the survival of the patient. The treatment of type A aortic dissection involves emergent open-heart surgery. Medical treatment and clinical follow-up are recommended for uncomplicated type B dissections. In this report, we present a case of an extensive type B aortic dissection in an asymptomatic patient who required immediate surgical intervention.

Misdiagnosis of aortic dissection: A systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Aortic dissection is a rare but potentially catastrophic condition. Misdiagnosis of aortic dissection is not uncommon as symptoms can overlap with other diagnoses.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review to better understand the factors contributing to incorrect diagnosis of this condition.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies that evaluated the misdiagnosis of aortic dissection. The rate of misdiagnosis was pooled and results were narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies with were included with 1663 patients. The overall rate of misdiagnosis of aortic dissection was 33.8%. The proportion of patients presenting with chest pain, back pain and syncope were 67.5%, 24.8% and 6.8% respectively. The proportion of patients with pre-existing hypertension was 55.4%, 30.5% were smokers while the proportion of patients with coronary artery disease, previous cardiovascular surgery or surgical trauma and Marfan syndrome was 14.7%, 5.8%, and 3.7%, respectively. Factors related to misdiagnosis included the presence of symptoms and features associated with other diseases (such as acute coronary syndrome, stroke and pulmonary embolism), the absence of typical features (such as widened mediastinum on chest X-ray) or concurrent conditions such congestive heart failure. Factors associated with more accurate diagnosis included more comprehensive history taking and increased use of imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

Misdiagnosis in patients with an eventual diagnosis of aortic dissection affects 1 in 3 patients. Clinicians should consider aortic dissection as differential diagnosis in patients with chest pain, back pain and syncope. Imaging should be used early to make the diagnosis when aortic dissection is suspected.

Misdiagnosis of Thoracic Aortic Disease Occurs Commonly in Emergency Transfers

BACKGROUND

Acute aortic syndromes (AAS) are prone to misdiagnosis by facilities with limited diagnostic experience. We assessed long-term trends in misdiagnosis among patients transferred to a tertiary care facility with presumed AAS.

METHODS

Our institutional transfer center database was queried for emergency transfers in patients with a diagnosis of acute aortic syndromes or thoracic aortic aneurysm between January 2008 and May 2018. 784 patients were classified as emergency transfer for presumed AAS. Transferring diagnosis and actual diagnosis were compared through a review of physician notes and radiology reports from referring facilities and our center.

RESULTS

Mean age was 62 years, with 61% (n=478) men. Differences in transferring diagnosis and actual diagnosis were identified in 89 (11.4%) patients. Among misdiagnosed patients, the wrong classification of Stanford Type A or Type B dissections was identified among 24 (27%) patients. Twenty-three (26%) patients with a referring diagnosis of aortic dissection were found to have no dissection. Eighteen patients (20%) transferred for contained/impending rupture did not have signs of rupture. All misdiagnoses were secondary to misinterpretation of radiographic imaging, with motion artifacts (n=14, 16%) and post-surgical changes (n=22, 25%) being common sources of diagnostic error. Sixty-four (72%) patients underwent repeat scans at our facility due to limited access or sub-optimal quality of outside imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

While AAS misdiagnosis rates appear to be improving from the prior decade, there are opportunities for improved physician awareness through campaigns such as "Think Aorta." Centralized web-based imaging may prevent the costly hazards of unnecessary emergency transfer.

Why the aortic dissection detection risk score is problematic in emergency departments

Acute aortic syndromes, including aortic dissection (AD), are rare. The AD detection risk score (ADDRS) and associated investigation pathway were developed to reduce missed diagnosis of AD. The methodology for its development was sub-optimal and it has not been robustly validated in the emergency department chest pain population. Recent research suggests that it will drive over-investigation and that the risks of missed diagnosis may not be in balance with the risks of the testing strategy. There are serious doubts about whether the score and investigation pathway are fit for purpose.

Barriers and facilitators affecting implementation of the Canadian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome

BACKGROUND

Acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is an uncommon, life-threatening emergency that is frequently misdiagnosed. The 2020 Canadian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis of AAS incorporate all available evidence into four key recommendations. In order to facilitate the implementation of these recommendations, a clinical decision aid was created. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators among physicians prior to implementation of the guideline recommendations in a multicentre step wedge cluster randomized control trial.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with nine emergency room physicians working at five sites distributed between urban academic and rural settings. We used purposive sampling, contacting physicians until data saturation was reached. Interview questions were designed to understand potential barriers and facilitators to guideline recommendation uptake and use. Responses were analysed according to the Theoretical Domains Framework, and overarching themes describing these barriers and facilitators were identified.

RESULTS

Two themes and six subthemes encompassing 13 theoretical domains were identified. These included clinical decision-making support, awareness of the evidence, social factors, expected consequences, ability of physicians to acquire the necessary data and ease of use. A majority of interviewees anticipated that the guideline recommendations would support clinical decision making and more effectively risk-stratify patients. Other facilitators included endorsement of the guidelines by professional organizations and peers. Barriers to implementation include the fact that laboratory testing and knowledge of the rationale for its use in the investigation of AAS were not widespread. The complexity of the clinical decision aid and concerns about test specificity were also identified as potential barriers to use.

CONCLUSION

Physicians were amenable to using the AAS guideline recommendations to support clinical decision-making and to reduce resource use. A structured intervention should be developed to address the identified barriers and leverage the facilitators in order to ensure successful implementation. Our findings may have implications for the implementation of other guidelines used in emergency departments.

Aortic Dissection and Other Acute Aortic Syndromes: Diagnostic Imaging Findings from Acute to Chronic Longitudinal Progression

Acute aortic dissection is the prototype of acute aortic syndromes (AASs), which include intramural hematoma, limited intimal tear, penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer, traumatic or iatrogenic aortic dissection, and leaking or ruptured aortic aneurysm. The manifestation is usually sudden and catastrophic with acutely severe tearing chest or back pain. However, clinical symptoms do not allow distinction between AAS types and other acute pathologic conditions. Diagnostic imaging is essential to rapidly confirm and accurately diagnose the type, magnitude, and complications of AASs. CT fast acquisition of volumetric datasets has become instrumental in diagnosis, surveillance, and intervention planning. Most critical findings affecting initial intervention and prognosis are obtained at CT, including involvement of the ascending aorta, primary intimal tear location, rupture, malperfusion, size and patency of the false lumen, complexity and extent of the dissection, maximum caliber of the aorta, and progression or postintervention complications. Involvement of the ascending aorta-Stanford type A-has the most rapid lethal complications and requires surgical intervention to affect its morbidity and mortality. Lesions not involving the ascending aorta-Stanford type B-have a lesser rate of complications in the acute phase. During the acute to longitudinal progression, various specific and nonspecific imaging findings are encountered, including pleural and pericardial effusions, fluid collections, progression including aortic enlargement, and postoperative changes that can be discerned at CT. A systematic analysis algorithm is proposed for CT of the entire aorta throughout the continuum of AASs into the chronic and posttreated disease state, which synthesizes and communicates salient findings to all care providers. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ^©RSNA, 2021.

Malperfusion-associated transient monoplegia as an initial manifestation of aortic dissection

Acute aortic dissection (AD) is a life-threatening emergency. The most common symptom of AD is chest pain, more frequently associated with Type-A AD per the Stanford classification, while Type-B AD is associated with back and abdominal pain. Conversely, monoplegia is an uncommon symptom of AD. We encountered a case of transient monoplegia caused by Stanford type-B AD. A 75-year-old man presented with acute-onset lumbar back pain with monoplegia. Lumbar radiography revealed multiple compression fractures and spinal-canal stenosis, and accordingly acute spinal-cord compression was suspected. Monoplegia subsided after a diclofenac suppository was administrated to reduce his pain. However, the patient's right lower-extremity pain and paralysis worsened at rest during the stay. Computer tomography angiography revealed Stanford type-B AD and the false lumen obstructing the right common iliac artery. Monoplegia in type-B AD can develop due to spinal-cord or lumbosacral-plexus ischemia. Malperfusion, determined by the balance of the pressure in the false and true lumens and subsequent end-organ ischemia, may produce transient or persistent symptom patterns. Emergency physicians need to suspect AD when a patient presents with monoplegia or transient symptom patterns of unknown etiology.

What is the distribution of Aortic Dissection Detection Risk Score in an undifferentiated emergency department chest pain population?

OBJECTIVE

To determine the distribution of Aortic Dissection Detection Risk Score (ADDRS) in undifferentiated chest pain patients.

METHODS

Prospective observational study of adult patients presenting to the ED with non-traumatic chest pain.

RESULTS

Of 139 patients studied, more than 75% of patients has an ADDRS ≥1, mainly because of the report of severe pain. There were no aortic dissections. In patients with non-specific chest pain, testing driven by the ADDRS protocol would have seen a 280% increase in d-dimer testing and 2200% increase in computed tomography aortogram rates.

CONCLUSION

Widespread use of the ADDRS and its investigation protocol cannot be supported.

Sex-specific risk factors for early mortality and survival after surgery of acute aortic dissection type a: a retrospective observational study

Background

Although gender-related disparities in cardiovascular surgery have been investigated extensively in the past decades, knowledge about the impact of gender on outcomes after surgery for acute aortic dissection type A (AADA) is sparse. This study investigated the impact of gender on early morbidity and mortality and follow-up outcome in patients after surgery for AADA and to analyze gender-related risk factors for 30-day mortality.

Methods

This retrospective study included 368 consecutive patients (male 65.8% vs. female 34.2%) undergoing surgery for AADA between 2001 and 2016 at our department. Survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier curves. Risk factors for 30-day mortality were assessed by multivariable logistic regression and interaction analysis.

Results

Women were older (70.7 years vs. 60.6 years; p <  0.001) and showed a higher logistic EuroSCORE I (31.0% vs. 19.7%, p <  0.001). In the male group, a higher portion of smokers (27.6% vs. 16.0%, p = 0.015) and intraoperatively, more complex procedures and longer cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) (171 min vs. 149 min, p = 0.001) and cross-clamping times (94 min vs. 85 min, p = 0.018) occurred. 30-day mortality was 19.0% in the female and 16.5% in the male group (p = 0.545). Predictive for 30-day mortality in both genders was intraoperative blood transfusion, while in the female group chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), peripheral arterial disease and preoperative intubation were predictive. Preoperative cardiopulmonary resuscitation and duration of CPB time were predictors only in males. Averaged follow-up time was 5.2 years and survival did not differ between genders, even if it was stratified by age over 70 years.

Conclusions

This analysis demonstrated a similar and satisfactory survival in both genders after surgical treatment of AADA. Women and men differed significantly in age, unadjusted and adjusted risk factors and complexity of surgical treatment, but gender itself was no risk factor for mortality. These results suggest that the decision-making for surgical treatment should not depend on gender, but that accounting for sex-specific risk factors rather than common risk factors may help to improve the outcome in both genders.

The risk of misdiagnosis in acute thoracic aortic dissection: a review of current guidelines

Acute aortic syndrome and in particular aortic dissection (AAD) persists as a cause of significant morbidity and mortality despite improvements in surgical management. This clinical review aims to explore the risks of misdiagnosis, outcomes associated with misdiagnosis and evaluate current diagnostic methods for reducing its incidence.Due to the nature of the pathology, misdiagnosing the condition and delaying management can dramatically worsen patient outcomes. Several diagnostic challenges exist, including low prevalence, rapidly propagating pathology, non-discrete symptomatology, non-specific signs, analogy with other acute conditions and lack of management infrastructure. A similarity to acute coronary syndromes is a specific concern and risks patient maltreatment. AAD with malperfusion syndromes are both a cause of misdiagnosis and marker of disease complication, requiring specifically tailored management plans from the emergency setting.Despite improvements in diagnostic measures, including imaging modalities and biomarkers, misdiagnosis of AAD remains commonplace and current guidelines are relatively limited in preventing its occurrence. This paper recommends the early use of AAD risk scoring, focused echocardiography and most importantly, fast-tracking patients to cross-sectional imaging where the suspicion of AAD is high. This has the potential to improve the diagnostic process for AAD and limit the risk of misdiagnosis. However, our understanding remains limited by the lack of large patient datasets and an adequately audited processes of emergency department practice.

A Case of Burning Throat Pain

BACKGROUND

Throat pain is a common complaint in the emergency department. The related diagnoses are varied, from simple gastroesophageal reflux disease to catastrophic aortic dissection. This case highlights the importance of pertinent patient history and frequent reassessments in order to recognize the latter.

CASE REPORT

A 58-year-old woman was found to have a type A aortic dissection after initially presenting to the emergency department with a chief complaint of "burning" throat pain. Throughout the patient's evaluation in the emergency department, her symptoms evolved from the complaint of mild throat pain and water brash to development of chest pain and sudden right lower extremity cramping. Her history of hypertension, smoking, and a previous cerebral aneurysm prompted further intervention, including aggressive blood pressure control and emergent imaging. A computed tomography scan with angiography revealed the diagnosis of a type A aortic dissection. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: We highlight the importance of recognizing that patient presentation may change throughout the course of the emergency department stay, and that our case represents an atypical presentation of serious disease.

Impact of 24-hour specialist coverage and an on-site CT scanner on the timely diagnosis of acute aortic dissection

INTRODUCTION

Acute aortic dissection (AAD) is a rare and potentially fatal condition that has been known to be missed in diagnoses. Our primary objective was to determine if the availability of 24-hour emergency department (ED) specialist coverage and an on-site computed tomography (CT) scanner reduced the rate of missed diagnoses of AAD.

METHODS

We selected records of patients diagnosed with dissection of the aorta from a hospital's discharge database and death register in the period of January 1998 to December 2014. AAD was defined as missed if imaging to diagnose AAD or a cardiology/cardiothoracic surgical consultation was not obtained in the ED. We compared the rates of missed diagnosis before and after the availability of 24-hour ED specialist coverage and an on-site CT scanner in the ED.

RESULTS

Among 145 patients, 42 (29.0%) had a missed diagnosis. The proportion of missed AAD was lower in the post-implementation period compared to the pre-implementation period (20.0% vs. 37.3%, odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20‒0.89; p = 0.023). After adjusting for confounders, the difference remained significant (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14‒0.70; p = 0.005). In the post-implementation period, concurrent signs of congestive cardiac failure (OR 33.51, 95% CI 1.42‒789.20; p = 0.024) and absence of a widened mediastinum on chest radiography (OR 11.52, 95% CI 1.37‒96.80; p = 0.029) were independent predictors of missed diagnoses.

CONCLUSION

The availability of 24-hour ED specialist coverage and an on-site CT scanner improved the diagnosis of AAD in our study.

Impact of ascending aortic, hemiarch and arch repair on early and long-term outcomes in patients with Stanford A acute aortic dissection

BACKGROUND:

Stanford A acute aortic dissection (AAD) is a life-threatening emergency associated with major morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of three different surgical approaches in patients with Stanford A AAD.

METHODS:

From January 2006 to March 2015 a total of 240 consecutive patients with diagnosed Stanford A AAD underwent elective, isolated surgical aortic repair in our centre. Patients were divided into three groups according to the extent of surgical repair: isolated replacement of the ascending aorta, hemiarch replacement and total arch replacement. Patients were followed up for up to 9 years. After univariate analysis multinomial logistic regression was performed for subgroup analysis. Baseline characteristics and endpoints as well as long-term survival were analysed.

RESULTS:

There were no statistically significant differences among the three groups in terms of demographics and preoperative baseline and clinical characteristics. Incidence of in-hospital stroke ( p = 0.034), need for reopening due to bleeding ( p = 0.031) and in-hospital mortality ( p = 0.017) increased significantly with the extent of the surgical approach. There was no statistical difference in terms of long-term survival ( p = 0.166) among the three groups. Applying multinomial logistic regression for subgroup analysis significantly higher odds for stroke ( p = 0.023), reopening for bleeding ( p = 0.010) and in-hospital mortality ( p = 0.009) for the arch surgery group in comparison to the ascending aorta surgery group as well as significantly higher odds for stroke ( p = 0.029) for the total arch surgery group in comparison to the hemiarch surgery group were identified.

CONCLUSIONS:

With Stanford A AAD the incidence of perioperative complications increased significantly with the extent of the surgical approach. Subgroup analysis and long-term follow up in patients undergoing isolated ascending or hemiarch surgery showed a lower incidence of cerebrovascular events compared with surgery for total arch replacement.

A case report of unexpected sudden cardiac death due to aortic rupture following laparoscopic appendectomy

INTRODUCTION

Aortic dissection is a very rare but life-threatening condition associated with a high mortality. Unexpected sudden cardiac death due to aortic rupture following laparoscopic appendectomy is very rare and may be difficult to diagnose. However, early diagnosis of aortic dissection is essential for the timely treatment and outcome of aortic dissection.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 50-year-old man underwent a laparoscopic appendectomy. Postoperatively, the patient complained of dyspnea and chest pain. In 25 minutes after arrival in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), the patient was in asystole. Then, he underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) according to advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) protocol using 1 mg of epinephrine, one 200J DC shock for ventricular fibrillation (V-fib). After that, his noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) was 80/40 mm Hg, pulse rate (PR) was 140 beats/min, and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) was 84%. His electrocardiogram (ECG) finding was atrial fibrillation (A-fib). After 20 minutes, the patient developed asystole rhythm again and CPR was restarted. He remained severely hypotensive despite vasopressors and died after 5 hours CPR. A forensic autopsy was performed postmoterm and thoracic and abdominal aortic dissection along the root of ascending aorta was present and massive hematoma within right and left thorax was present.

CONCLUSION

Acute aortic disease can be difficult to recognize; therefore, diagnosis is sometimes delayed or missed. It is important to recognize the atypical symptoms of aortic dissection and maintain a broad differential diagnosis if patients complained of abdominal pain.

Hot Off the Press: SGEM #215 Aortic Dissection-Love Will Tear Us Apart

This systematic review provides an assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of various historical, physical, and clinical examination features for aortic dissection. Nine articles were included, with moderate to high heterogeneity. Limitations to general practice include risk of selection bias and partial verification bias. Risk scores were included, but their use is not recommended at this time.

Bilateral blood pressure differential as a clinical marker for acute aortic dissection in the emergency department

INTRODUCTION

Interarm systolic BP differential is a classic sign of acute aortic dissection (AAD). All previous studies looking at the association of BP differential with AAD combine systolic BP differential >20 mm Hg with pulse deficit. Our aim was to assess the association of systolic BP differential with AAD, and its role in predicting AAD in the context of other signs and symptoms.

METHODS

Historical matched case-control study using patient data collected between 2002 and 2014: participants were adults >18 years old with a bilateral BP measurement presenting to two tertiary care EDs or one regional cardiac referral centre in Canada. Cases were patients with diagnosed AAD; controls were those with a triage diagnosis of truncal pain (<14 days) and an absence of a clear diagnosis on basic investigation. Cases and controls were matched in a 1:1 ratio by sex and age. Bilateral BP differential and pulse deficit were compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 222 patients (111 cases and 111 controls) were analysed. On univariate analysis systolic BP differential >20 mm Hg (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.39 to 5.25) was significantly associated with AAD. Pulse deficit (diagnostic OR (DOR) 28.9) in isolation had better diagnostic accuracy than systolic BP differential >20 mm Hg in isolation (DOR 2.71) or combined with systolic BP differential >20 mm Hg (DOR 4.2).

CONCLUSION

Bilateral systolic BP differentials >20 mm Hg are associated with non-traumatic AAD. However, the poor diagnostic accuracy and potential variability in measurement limits its clinical usefulness.

Clinical Examination for Acute Aortic Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Acute aortic dissection is a life-threatening condition due to a tear in the aortic wall. It is difficult to diagnose and if missed carries a significant mortality.

METHODS

We conducted a librarian-assisted systematic review of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane database from 1968 to July 2016. Titles and abstracts were reviewed and data were extracted by two independent reviewers (agreement measured by kappa). Studies were combined if low clinical and statistical heterogeneity (I²  < 30%). Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Bivariate random effects meta analyses using Revman 5 and SAS 9.3 were performed.

RESULTS

We identified 792 records: 60 were selected for full text review, nine studies with 2,400 participants were included (QUADAS-2 low risk of bias, κ = 0.89 [for full-text review]). Prevalence of aortic dissection ranged from 21.9% to 76.1% (mean ± SD = 39.1% ± 17.1%). The clinical findings increasing probability of aortic dissection were 1) neurologic deficit (n = 3, specificity = 95%, positive likelihood ratio [LR+] = 4.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.3-5.7, I²  = 0%) and 2) hypotension (n = 4, specificity = 95%, LR+ = 2.9 95% CI = 1.8-4.6, I²  = 42%), and decreasing probability were the absence of a widened mediastinum (n = 4, sensitivity = 76%-95%, negative likelihood ratio [LR-] = 0.14-0.60, I²  = 93%) and an American Heart Association aortic dissection detection (AHA ADD) risk score < 1 (n = 1, sensitivity = 91%, LR- = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.15-0.33).

CONCLUSIONS

Suspicion for acute aortic dissection should be raised with hypotension, pulse, or neurologic deficit. Conversely, a low AHA ADD score decreases suspicion. Clinical gestalt informed by high- and low-risk features together with an absence of an alternative diagnosis should drive investigation for acute aortic dissection.

Unrecognized Cardiovascular Emergencies Among Medicare Patients

IMPORTANCE

The Institute of Medicine described diagnostic error as the next frontier in patient safety and highlighted a critical need for better measurement tools.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the proportions of emergency department (ED) visits attributable to symptoms of imminent ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, aortic dissection, and subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) that end in discharge without diagnosis; to evaluate longitudinal trends; and to identify patient characteristics independently associated with missed diagnostic opportunities.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a retrospective cohort study of all Medicare claims for 2006 to 2014. The setting was hospital EDs in the United States. Participants included all fee-for-service Medicare patients admitted to the hospital during 2007 to 2014 for the conditions of interest. Hospice enrollees and patients with recent skilled nursing facility stays were excluded.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The proportion of potential diagnostic opportunities missed in the ED was estimated using the difference between observed and expected ED discharges within 45 days of the index hospital admissions as the numerator, basing expected discharges on ED use by the same patients in earlier months. The denominator was estimated as the number of recognized emergencies (index hospital admissions) plus unrecognized emergencies (excess discharges).

RESULTS

There were 1 561 940 patients, including 17 963 hospitalized for ruptured AAA, 304 980 for AMI, 1 181 648 for stroke, 19 675 for aortic dissection, and 37 674 for SAH. The mean (SD) age was 77.9 (10.3) years; 8.9% were younger than 65 years, and 54.1% were female. The proportions of diagnostic opportunities missed in the ED were as follows: ruptured AAA (3.4%; 95% CI, 2.9%-4.0%), AMI (2.3%; 95% CI, 2.1%-2.4%), stroke (4.1%; 95% CI, 4.0%-4.2%), aortic dissection (4.5%; 95% CI, 3.9%-5.1%), and SAH (3.5%; 95% CI, 3.1%-3.9%). Longitudinal trends were either nonsignificant (AMI and aortic dissection) or increasing (ruptured AAA, stroke, and SAH). Patient characteristics associated with unrecognized emergencies included age younger than 65 years, dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid coverage, female sex, and each of the following chronic conditions: end-stage renal disease, dementia, depression, diabetes, cerebrovascular disease, hypertension, coronary artery disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among Medicare patients, opportunities to diagnose ruptured AAA, AMI, stroke, aortic dissection, and SAH are missed in less than 1 in 20 ED presentations. Further improvement may prove difficult.

The frequency of initial misdiagnosis of acute aortic dissection in the emergency department and its impact on outcome

We determine the frequency of initial misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment with antiplatelets/anticoagulants in the emergency department (ED) and the resultant clinical outcomes in patients with acute type A aortic dissection (AAOD). Medical records of patients with a final diagnosis of AAOD admitted from March 2004 through October 2015 to our tertiary-level heart hospital were evaluated. Patients with suspected dissection in ED were compared to those with initial misdiagnosis regarding demographics and clinical presentation, laboratory and echocardiographic findings. Our primary outcome was hospital mortality in two groups. Long-term mortality after discharge was our secondary outcome. Among 189 patients, 47 (24.8 %) were initially misdiagnosed and received antiplatelets/anticoagulants in ED (Group F), and 142 (75.1 %) were appropriately diagnosed in ED (Group T). The mean age in group F was 60.4 ± 15.0 vs. 57.4 ± 16.0 years in group T (p = 0.260). In group F, 70.2 % were male vs. 60.6 % in group T (p = 0.311). Hospital mortality was 48.9 % in group F vs. 43.7 % in group T (p = 0.645). Long-term mortality was significantly higher in group F (55.6 vs. 21.2 %, p = 0.007). Univariate hazard ratio (HR) of initial misdiagnosis for long-term mortality was 2.56 (95 % CI 1.08-6.06, p = 0.031). In multivariate Cox regression analysis with adjustment for age and type of management (surgical/medical), initial misdiagnosis lost its significance for predicting long-term mortality (HR 2.14, 95 % CI 0.89-5.13, p = 0.086). Initial misdiagnosis of AAOD is a common problem. Hospital mortality is not significantly affected by receiving antiplatelets/anticoagulants. Although long-term mortality is higher in patients with initial misdiagnosis, it is not an independent predictor for long-term mortality.

Impact of gender on long-term outcomes after surgical repair for acute Stanford A aortic dissection: a propensity score matched analysis

OBJECTIVES

Previous research suggests that female gender is associated with increased mortality rates after surgery for Stanford A acute aortic dissection (AAD). However, women with AAD usually present with different clinical symptoms that may bias outcomes. Moreover, there is a lack of long-term results regarding overall mortality and freedom from major cerebrovascular events. We analysed the impact of gender on long-term outcomes after surgery for Stanford A AAD by comparing genders with similar risk profiles using propensity score matching.

METHODS

A total of 240 patients operated for Stanford A AAD were included in this study. To control for selection bias and other confounders, propensity score matching was applied to gender groups.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, the gender groups were well balanced in terms of risk profiles. There were no statistically significant differences regarding duration of cardiopulmonary bypass ( P  = 0.165) and duration of aortic cross-clamp time ( P  = 0.111). Female patients received less fresh frozen plasma ( P  = 0.021), had shorter stays in the intensive care unit ( P  = 0.031), lower incidence of temporary neurological dysfunction ( P  < 0.001) and lower incidence of dialysis ( P  = 0.008). There were no significant differences regarding intraoperative mortality ( P  = 1.000), 30-day mortality ( P  = 0.271), long-term overall cumulative survival ( P  = 0.954) and long-term freedom from cerebrovascular events ( P  = 0.235) with up to a 9-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering patients with similar risk profiles, female gender per se is not associated with worse long-term survival and freedom from stroke after surgical aortic repair. Moreover, female patients might even benefit from a smoother early postoperative course and lower incidence of early postoperative complications.

Biomarkers Investigation for In-Hospital Death in Patients With Stanford Type A Acute Aortic Dissection

This retrospective study aimed to investigate the predictive value of biomarkers for in-hospital mortality of patients with Stanford type A acute aortic dissection (AAD).AAD is a life-threatening disease with an incidence of about 2.6-3.6 cases per 100,000/year.A total of 67 consecutive Stanford type A AAD patients admitted to hospital were divided into a deceased group and survival group. The baseline information of the patients between two groups was systematically compared, followed by examination of the electrocardiograms (ECG). Based on the follow-up during hospitalization, we investigated the simultaneous assessment of indexes like fragmented QRS complex (fQRS), admission systolic blood pressure (SBP), aortic diameter, surgical management, troponin I (TnI), white blood cell (WBC) count, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and D-dimer.The levels of TnI and NT-proBNP, WBC counts, and rate of fQRS (+) in patients of the deceased group were significantly higher than those in the survival group. The male sex (hazard ratio, 10.88; P = 0.001), admission SBP (hazard ratio, 0.98; P = 0.012), NT-proBNP (hazard ratio, 1.00; P = 0.001), and WBC count (hazard ratio, 1.10; P = 0.033) were independently related with in-hospital death. As a single marker, WBC count had the highest sensitivity at 84.6% (specificity 65.9%).Admission SBP, NT-proBNP, and WBC count were potential independent risk factors of in-hospital death in Stanford type A AAD patients. WBC count may be a more accurate predictor of type A AAD than either alone.

Preoperative evaluation value of aortic arch lesions by multidetector computed tomography angiography in type A aortic dissection

The purpose of this study was to preoperatively evaluate the value of aortic arch lesions by multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) angiography in type A aortic dissection (AD).From January 2013 to December 2015, we enrolled 42 patients with type A AD who underwent MDCT angiography in our hospital. The institutional database of patients was retrospectively reviewed to identify MDCT angiography examinations for type A AD. Surgical corrections were conducted in all patients to confirm diagnostic accuracy.In this study, the diagnostic accuracy of MDCT angiography was 100% in all 42 patients. The intimal tear site locations that were identified in patients included the ascending aorta (n = 25), aortic arch (n = 12), and all other sites (n = 5). Compared with the control group, there were significant differences in the aortic arch anatomy among the cases. Regarding the distance between the left common carotid and left subclavian arteries, compared with the control group, most cases with type A AD had a significant variation.MDCT angiography plays an important role in detecting aortic arch lesions of type A AD, especially in determining the location of the intimal entry site and change of branch blood vessels. Surgeons can formulate an appropriate operating plan, according to the preoperative MDCT diagnosis information.

Acute Aortic Dissection Biomarkers Identified Using Isobaric Tags for Relative and Absolute Quantitation

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of potential serum biomarkers for acute aortic dissection (AAD) that were identified by isobaric Tags for Relative and Absolute Quantitation (iTRAQ) approaches. Serum samples from 20 AAD patients and 20 healthy volunteers were analyzed using iTRAQ technology. Protein validation was performed using samples from 120 patients with chest pain. A total of 355 proteins were identified with the iTRAQ approach; 164 proteins reached the strict quantitative standard, and 125 proteins were increased or decreased more than 1.2-fold (64 and 61 proteins were up- and downregulated, resp.). Lumican, C-reactive protein (CRP), thrombospondin-1 (TSP-1), and D-dimer were selected as candidate biomarkers for the validation tests. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves show that Lumican and D-dimer have diagnostic value (area under the curves [AUCs] 0.895 and 0.891, P < 0.05). For Lumican, the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were 73.33% and 98.33%, while the corresponding values for D-dimer were 93.33% and 68.33%. For Lumican and D-dimer AAD combined diagnosis, the sensitivity and specificity were 88.33% and 95%, respectively. In conclusion, Lumican has good specificity and D-dimer has good sensitivity for the diagnosis of AAD, while the combined detection of D-dimer and Lumican has better diagnostic value.

Outcomes before and after the Implementation of a Critical Pathway for Patients with Acute Aortic Disease

PURPOSE

Acute aortic diseases, such as aortic dissection and aortic aneurysm, can be life-threatening vascular conditions. In this study, we compared outcomes before and after the implementation of a critical pathway (CP) for patients with acute aortic disease at the emergency department (ED).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective observational cohort study. The CP was composed of two phases: PRE-AORTA for early diagnosis and AORTA for prompt treatment. We compared patients who were diagnosed with acute aortic disease between pre-period (January 2010 to December 2011) and post-period (July 2012 to June 2014).

RESULTS

Ninety-four and 104 patients were diagnosed with acute aortic disease in the pre- and post-periods, respectively. After the implementation of the CP, 38.7% of acute aortic disease cases were diagnosed via PRE-AORTA. The door-to-CT time was reduced more in PRE-AORTA-activated patients [71.0 (61.0, 115.0) min vs. 113.0 (56.0, 170.5) min; p=0.026]. During the post-period, more patients received emergency intervention than during the pre-period (22.3% vs. 36.5%; p=0.029). Time until emergency intervention was reduced in patients, who visited the ED directly, from 378.0 (302.0, 489.0) min in the pre-period to 200.0 (170.0, 299.0) min in the post-period (p=0.001). The number of patients who died in the ED declined from 11 to 4 from the pre-period to the post-period. Hospital mortality decreased from 26.6% to 14.4% in the post-period (p=0.033).

CONCLUSION

After the implementation of a CP for patients with acute aortic disease, more patients received emergency intervention within a shorter time, resulting in improved hospital mortality.

A Description of the Prehospital Phase of Aortic Dissection in Terms of Early Suspicion and Treatment

Purpose

Aortic dissection is difficult to detect in the early phase due to a variety of symptoms. This report describes the prehospital setting of aortic dissection in terms of symptoms, treatment, and suspicion by the Emergency Medical Service (EMS) staff.

Basic Procedures

All patients in the Municipality of Gothenburg, Sweden, who, in 2010 and 2011, had a hospital discharge diagnosis of aortic dissection (international classification of disease (ICD) I 71,0) were included. The exclusion criteria were: age < 18 years of age and having a planned operation. This was a retrospective, descriptive study based on patient records. In the statistical analyses, Fisher's exact test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used for analyses of dichotomous and continuous/ordered variables.

Main findings

Of 92 patients, 78% were transported to the hospital by the EMS. The most common symptom was pain (94%). Pain was intensive or very intensive in 89% of patients, with no significant difference in relation to the use of the EMS. Only 47% of those using the EMS were given pain relief with narcotic analgesics. Only 12% were free from pain on admission to the hospital. A suspicion of aortic dissection was reported by the EMS staff in only 17% of cases. The most common preliminary diagnosis at the dispatch center (31%) and by EMS clinicians (52%) was chest pain or angina pectoris. In all, 79% of patients were discharged alive from the hospital (75% of those that used the EMS and 95% of those that did not).

Conclusion

Among patients who were hospitalized due to aortic dissection in Gothenburg, 78% used the EMS. Despite severe pain in the majority of patients, fewer than half received narcotic analgesics, and only 12% were free from pain on admission to the hospital. In fewer than one-in-five patients was a suspicion of aortic dissection reported by the EMS staff.

AxelssonC, KarlssonT, PandeK, WigertzK, ÖrtenwallP, NordanstigJ, HerlitzJ. A description of the prehospital phase of aortic dissection in terms of early suspicion and treatment. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(2):1-8.

Tuning out the noise: cognitive biases

In my brief training as an emergency physician, I have experienced numerous distracting cognitive biases that have interfered with establishing proper diagnoses. Recognizing these potential barriers and appreciating them is essential to excellent patient care.

The importance of clinical suspicion in the diagnosis of a successfully managed case with De Bakey Type 1 acute aortic dissection: A case report

Type 1 aortic dissection is a catastrophic clinical entity originating from the ascending aorta. Clinical suspicion in patients with epigastric pain, chest pain and gastrointestinal symptoms might be life saving. Aortic dissection and acute mesenteric ischemia might be confusing in diagnosis of patients with epigastric pain, chest pain, gastrointestinal symptoms and high white blood cell count and D-dimer. In this case report of a patient who was admitted to the emergency room with a presentation resembling acute mesenteric ischemia, this diagnosis was excluded within the first 24 hours as a result of clinical suspicion. In this case report, the successful management in diagnosis and treatment of a 30-year-old male patient with type 1 aortic dissection is discussed in light of the literature.

Early recognition of acute thoracic aortic dissection and aneurysm

BACKGROUND

Thoracic aortic dissection (TAD) and aneurysm (TAA) are rare but catastrophic. Prompt recognition of TAD/TAA and differentiation from acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is difficult yet crucial. Earlier identification of TAA/TAD based upon routine emergency department screening is necessary.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients that presented with acute thoracic complaints to the ED from January 2007 through June 2012 was performed. Cases of TAA/TAD were compared to an equal number of controls which consisted of patients with the diagnosis of ACS. Demographics, physical findings, EKG, and the results of laboratory and radiological imaging were compared. P-value of > 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

In total, 136 patients were identified with TAA/TAD, 0.36% of patients that presented with chest complaints. Compared to ACS patients, TAA/TAD group was older (68.9 vs. 63.2 years), less likely to be diabetic (13% vs 32%), less likely to complain of chest pain (47% vs 85%) and head and neck pain (4% vs 17%). The pain for the TAA/TAD group was less likely characterized as tight/heavy in nature (5% vs 37%). TAA/TAD patients were also less likely to experience shortness of breath (42% vs. 51%), palpitations (2% vs 9%) and dizziness (2% vs 13%) and had a greater incidence of focal lower extremity neurological deficits (6% vs 1%), bradycardia (15% vs. 5%) and tachypnea (53% vs. 22%). On multivariate analysis, increasing heart rate, chest pain, diabetes, head & neck pain, dizziness, and history of myocardial infarction were independent predictors of ACS.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing heart rate, chest pain, diabetes, head & neck pain, dizziness, and history of myocardial infarction can be used to differentiate acute coronary syndromes from thoracic aortic dissections/aneurysms.

Acute type a aortic dissection: for further improvement of outcomes

Despite improved outcomes of acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD), many patients die at the moment of onset, and hospital mortality is still high. This article reviews the latest literature to seek the best possible way to optimize outcomes. Delayed diagnosis is caused by variation in or absence of typical symptoms, especially in patients with neurological symptoms. Misdiagnosis as acute myocardial infarction is another problem. Improved awareness by physicians is needed. On arrival, quick admission to the OR is desirable, followed by assessment with transesophageal echocardiography, and malperfusion already exists or newly develops in the OR; thus, timely diagnosis without delay with multimodality assessment is important. Although endovascular therapy is promising, careful introduction is mandatory so as not to cause complications. While various routes are used for the systemic perfusion, not a single route is perfect, and careful monitoring is essential. Surgical treatment on octogenarians is increasingly performed and produces better outcomes than conservative therapy. Complications are not rare, and consent from the family is essential. Prevention of AAAD is another important issue because more patients die at its onset than in the following treatment. In addition to hereditary diseases, including bicuspid aortic valve disease, the management of blood pressure is important.