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

Non-Inferiority Analysis of Electrocardiography Analysis Application vs. Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Screening Left Ventricular Dysfunction

PURPOSE

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is widely used for heart function evaluation in emergency departments (EDs), but requires specific equipment and skilled operators. This study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of a mobile application for estimating left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction [left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <40%] using electrocardiography (ECG) and tests its non-inferiority to POCUS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients (aged ≥20 years) were included if they had both a POCUS-based EF evaluation and an ECG within 24 hours of their ED visit between January and May 2022, along with formal echocardiography within 2 weeks before or after the visit. A mobile app (ECG Buddy, EB) estimated LVEF (EF from EB) and the risk of LV dysfunction (LV-Dysfunction score) from ECG waveforms, which were compared to NT-proBNP levels and POCUS-evaluated LVEF (EF from POCUS). A non-inferiority margin was set at an area under the curve (AUC) difference of 0.05.

RESULTS

Of the 181 patients included, 37 (20.4%) exhibited LV dysfunction. The AUCs for screening LV dysfunction using POCUS and NT-proBNP were 0.885 and 0.822, respectively. EF from EB and LV-Dysfunction score outperformed NT-proBNP, with AUCs of 0.893 and 0.884, respectively (p=0.017 and p=0.030, respectively). EF from EB was non-inferior to EF from POCUS, while LV-Dysfunction score narrowly missed the mark. A subgroup analysis of sinus-origin rhythm ECGs supported the non-inferiority of both EF from EB and LV-Dysfunction score to EF from POCUS.

CONCLUSION

A smartphone application that analyzes ECG image can screen for LV dysfunction with a level of accuracy comparable to that of POCUS.

Effectiveness of chest pain center accreditation on the hospital outcome of acute aortic dissection: a nationwide study in China

BACKGROUND

The National Chest Pain Center Program (NCPCP) is a nationwide, quality enhancement program aimed at raising the standard of care for patients experiencing acute chest pain in China. The benefits of chest pain center (CPC) accreditation on acute coronary syndrome have been demonstrated. However, there is no evidence to indicate whether CPC accreditation improves outcomes for patients with acute aortic dissection (AAD).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational study of patients with AAD from 1671 hospitals in China, using data from the NCPCP spanning the period from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2022. The patients were divided into 2 groups: pre-accreditation and post-accreditation admissions. The outcomes examined included in-hospital mortality, misdiagnosis, and Stanford type A AAD surgery. Multivariate logistic regression was employed to explore the relationship between CPC accreditation and in-hospital outcomes. Furthermore, we stratified the hospitals based on their geographical location (Eastern/Central/Western regions) or administrative status (provincial/non-provincial capital areas) to assess the impact of CPC accreditation on AAD patients across various regions.

RESULTS

The analysis encompassed a total of 40,848 patients diagnosed with AAD. The post-accreditation group exhibited significantly lower rates of in-hospital mortality and misdiagnosis (12.1% vs. 16.3%, P < 0.001 and 2.9% vs. 5.4%, P < 0.001, respectively) as well as a notably higher rate of Stanford type A AAD surgery (61.1% vs. 42.1%, P < 0.001) compared with the pre-accreditation group. After adjusting for potential covariates, CPC accreditation was associated with substantially reduced risks of in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR 0.644, 95% CI 0.599-0.693) and misdiagnosis (adjusted OR 0.554, 95% CI 0.493-0.624), along with an increase in the proportion of patients undergoing Stanford type A AAD surgery (adjusted OR 1.973, 95% CI 1.797-2.165). Following CPC accreditation, there were significant reductions in in-hospital mortality across various regions, particularly in Western regions (from 21.5 to 14.1%). Moreover, CPC accreditation demonstrated a more pronounced impact on in-hospital mortality in non-provincial cities compared to provincial cities (adjusted OR 0.607 vs. 0.713).

CONCLUSION

CPC accreditation is correlated with improved management and in-hospital outcomes for patients with AAD.

Diagnosing aortic dissection: A review of this elusive, lethal diagnosis

Aortic dissection (AD) remains a difficult diagnosis in the emergency setting. Despite its rare occurrence, it is a life-threatening pathology that, if missed, is typically fatal. Previous studies have documented minimal improvement in timely and accurate diagnoses despite the advancement of computed tomography. Previous literature has highlighted aortic dissections as a major cause of serious misdiagnosis-related harm. The aim of this article is to review the available literature on AD, discussing the diversity in presentations and the prevalence of historical and exam features to better aid in the diagnosis of AD. AD remains a difficult diagnosis, even with the widespread prevalence of computed tomography angiography usage. No single feature of the history or physical examination is enough to raise suspicion. The diagnosis should be strongly considered in any patient with chest pain that is severe and unexplained by other findings or testing. Those who do not present with acute pain are often complicated by neurologic deficits, hypotension, or syncope. These patients suffer from a change in mental status limiting their ability to participate in the history and physical examination and have a higher rate of complications and mortality. An educated understanding of the atypical presentations of aortic dissection helps the clinician to realistically rank it on the differential diagnosis, culminating in judicious use of definitive imaging.

Prognostic impact of oral anticoagulation therapy and atrial fibrillation in patients with type B acute aortic dissection

Background

The prognostic impact of atrial fibrillation (AF) and oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy in patients with type B acute aortic dissection (AAD) remains unclear. Therefore, we investigated the prognostic impact of AF and OAC therapy in patients with type B AAD.

Methods

Consecutive patients diagnosed with AAD were included in this single-center, retrospective study. Patients with type B AAD were selected from the study population and divided into three groups: AF(+)/OAC(+), AF(+)/OAC(-), and AF(-)/OAC(-). The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), including all-cause death, progressive aortic events, cerebral infarction, and organ malperfusion.

Results

In total, 139 patients diagnosed with type B AAD were analyzed. AF was observed in 27 patients (19%). Among them, 13 patients (9%) received OAC therapy for AF. MACCE occurred in 32 patients (23%) during the observation period: all-cause death in four patients, progressive aortic events in 24 patients, cerebral infarction events in two patients, and malperfusion events in two patients. The incidence of MACCE was higher in the AF(+)/OAC(+) group than in the AF(+)/OAC(-) group (hazard ratio[HR]: 3.875; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.153-17.496). In contrast, there was no significant difference in the incidence of MACCE between the AF(+)/OAC(-) and AF(-)/OAC(-) groups (HR: 1.001, 95% CI: 0.509-1.802).

Conclusion

Among patients with type B AAD, the use of OAC for AF was associated with a higher risk of MACCE.

Extensive Type A Aortic Arterial Dissection Presenting With Stroke Symptoms: A Case Report

Aortic dissection (AD) is a rare but often lethal condition if not properly and urgently treated. Most often, patients arrive with acute hemodynamic instability and ripping chest agony. The patient's life depends critically on a correct diagnosis made as soon as possible. We describe a 60-year-old man who arrived at the emergency room with symptoms of a brain stroke, including poor consciousness, left-sided weakness, and speech disturbance associated with hemodynamic instability, and chest pain. Thoracic aortic arch dissection was observed on CT angiography (CTA). In addition, CTA revealed that the dissection extends proximally into the left common carotid artery, left subclavian artery, brachiocephalic trunk, and right common carotid artery and distally to the left common iliac artery, coupled with significant stenosis of the left common iliac artery. Proper management of blood pressure (BP) parameters is life-saving for the patient. Since our hospital did not offer cardiothoracic surgery services, the patient was transferred to a different institution, where he received medical care immediately from an expert team and had surgery.

Understanding the current acute aortic syndrome (AAS) pathways-The Collaborative Acute Aortic Syndrome Project (CAASP) protocol

BACKGROUND

Acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is an emergency associated with high peri-hospital mortality rates. Variable clinical presentation makes timely diagnosis challenging and such delays in diagnosis directly impact patient outcomes.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aims of the Collaborative Acute Aortic Syndrome Project (CAASP) are to characterise and evaluate the current AAS pathways of a cohort of hospitals in the UK, USA and New Zealand to determine if patient outcomes are influenced by the AAS pathway (time to hospital admission, diagnosis and management plan) and demographic, social, geographic and patient-specific factors (clinical presentation and comorbidities). The objectives are to describe different AAS pathways and time duration between hospital admission to diagnosis and management plan instigation, and to compare patient outcomes between pathways.

METHODS

The study is a multicentre, retrospective service evaluation project of adult patients diagnosed on imaging with AAS. It will be coordinated by the UK National Interventional Radiology Trainee Research (UNITE) network and Vascular and Endovascular Research Network (VERN) in conjunction with The Aortic Dissection Charitable Trust (TADCT). All AAS cases diagnosed on imaging between 1st January 2018 to 1st June 2021 will be included and followed-up for 6 months. Eligibility criteria include aortic dissection (AD) Type A, Type B, non A/B, penetrating aortic ulcer, and intramural haematoma. Exclusion criteria are non-AAS pathology, acute on chronic AAS, and age<18. This project will evaluate patient demographics, timing of presentation, patient symptoms, risk factors for AD, physical examination findings, timing to imaging and treatment, hospital stay, and mortality. Univariate and multivariate analysis will be used to identify predictors associated with prolonged time to diagnosis or treatment and mortality at 30 days.

Lateral Abdominal Wall Hematoma Mimicking Aortic Dissection Presentation: A Case Report

Lateral abdominal wall hematoma is a rare clinical entity but a great mimicker of other diseases' clinical presentations. In this case report, we present a 42-year-old male patient with a constellation of signs and symptoms that were mistaken for aortic dissection before the lateral abdominal wall hematoma diagnosis was confirmed with computed tomography (CT) imaging. Uncontrolled hypertension and persistent cough were most likely predisposing factors; the patient was managed conservatively and discharged in a stable condition.

Forgetfulness as the primary presenting symptom of type A acute aortic dissection

Acute aortic dissection (AAD) is the most common lethal disease affecting the aorta. Neurological symptoms have been linked to AAD in some patients. Although aortic dissection patients have previously been shown to present with neurological symptoms, AAD with forgetfulness as the first manifestation is extremely rare. To increase the awareness of AAD among clinicians, we report the first case of a male Chinese patient with AD presenting with forgetfulness as the initial symptom. A 53-year-old man presented to the emergency department with forgetfulness. Based on the concept that "time is brain," stroke was initially considered in the differential diagnosis. The patient underwent emergency coronary angiography and was diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction. After contrast-enhanced computed tomography angiography, the patient was finally diagnosed with AAD. Because valuable time was lost in diagnosis rather than treatment, optimal timing for surgery missed. The patient died following an aortic dissection rupture while waiting for emergency surgery. When forgetfulness cannot be completely accounted for in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction, AAD should be considered. We believe that this case report contains a worthwhile clinical lesson for clinicians.

Can you accurately rule out acute aortic syndrome by restricting imaging of the aorta to the area of the patient's pain?

BACKGROUND

Acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is a life-threatening condition necessitating timely and accurate diagnosis for appropriate treatment. Currently, the only way to rule out the diagnosis is advanced imaging. The most accessible is computed tomography of the entire aorta. Most scans are negative, exposing patients to radiation, increased time in the emergency department (ED), and non-significant incidental findings. This study investigated whether restricting imaging to the area of aortic-related pain accurately rules out AAS.

METHODS

A health records review was conducted on consecutive cases from three academic EDs between 2015 and 2020. Data were extracted and verified from multiple sources. Participants included adults diagnosed with AAS based on radiological evidence. The diagnostic performance of the restricted imaging strategy was assessed; sensitivity and likelihood ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

Data from 149 cases of AAS were collected, with the majority presenting with chest pain (46%) or abdominal pain (24%). The restricted imaging strategy demonstrated a sensitivity of 96% (95% CI 91.4-98.5%) in ruling out AAS. In a subset of patients with systolic blood pressure > 90 mmHg and without aortic aneurysm/repair (n = 86), the sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 96-100%).

CONCLUSION

Restricting imaging to the area of pain in hemodynamically stable patients without known aortic aneurysm provides a highly sensitive approach to ruling out AAS.

Acute Stanford Type A Aortic Dissection: A Review of Risk Factors and Outcomes

Acute aortic dissection (AAD) can be said to be a relatively uncommon emergency with fatal outcomes mainly due to delayed/missed diagnosis and treatment. Its ability to masquerade as other emergencies like acute coronary syndrome and pulmonary embolism makes the prognosis unfavorable in a significant proportion of patients. Patients have been seen to present to the accident and emergency department or outpatient setting with typical or atypical symptoms as we will discuss in this article. We have focused on indicators for risk and prognosis of acute Stanford type A aortic dissection in this traditional review. It is well known that despite recent developments and improvements in treatment modalities, AAD is still associated with a significant mortality rate and postoperative complications.

Acute aortic syndromes: An internist's guide to the galaxy

Acute aortic syndromes (AASs) are severe conditions defined by dissection, hemorrhage, ulceration or rupture of the thoracic aorta. AASs share etiological and pathophysiological features, including long-term aortic tissue degeneration and mechanisms of acute aortic damage. The clinical signs and symptoms of AASs are unspecific and heterogeneous, requiring large differential diagnosis. When evaluating a patient with AAS-compatible symptoms, physicians need to integrate clinical probability assessment, bedside imaging techniques such as point-of-care ultrasound, and blood test results such as d-dimer. The natural history of AASs is dominated by engagement of ischemic, coagulative and inflammatory pathways at large, causing multiorgan damage. Medical treatment, multiorgan monitoring and outcome prognostication are therefore paramount, with internal medicine playing a key role in non-surgical management of AASs.

Coronary artery involvement in type A aortic dissection: Fate of the coronaries

BACKGROUND

Type A aortic dissection (TAAD) involves a tear in the intimal layer of the thoracic aorta proximal to the left subclavian artery, and hence, carries a high risk of mortality and morbidity and requires urgent intervention. This dissection can extend into the main coronary arteries. Coronary artery involvement in TAAD can either be due to retrograde extension of the dissection flap into the coronaries or compression and/or blockage of these vessels by the dissection flap, possibly causing myocardial ischemia. Due to the emergent nature of TAAD, coronary involvement is often missed during diagnosis, thereby delaying the required intervention.

AIMS

The main scope of this review is to summarize the literature on the incidence, mechanism, diagnosis, and treatment of coronary artery involvement in TAAD.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed using multiple electronic databases, including PubMed, Ovid, Scopus and Embase, to identify and extract relevant studies.

RESULTS

Incidence of coronary artery involvement in TAAD was seldom reported in the literature, however, some studies have described patients diagnosed either preoperatively, intraoperatively following aortic clamping, or even during autopsy. Among the few studies that reported on this matter, the treatment choice for coronary involvement in TAAD was varied, with the majority revascularizing the coronary arteries using coronary artery bypass grafting or direct local repair of the vessels. It is well-established that coronary artery involvement in TAAD adds to the already high mortality and morbidity associated with this disease. Lastly, the right main coronary artery was often more implicated than the left.

CONCLUSION

This review reiterates the significance of an accurate diagnosis and timely and effective interventions to improve prognosis. Finally, further large cohort studies and longer trials are needed to reach a definitive consensus on the best approach for coronary involvement in TAAD.

Outpatient management of patients after surgical operations for acute aortic dissection of type A

Acute aortic dissection of type A is still one of the most difficult diseases faced by doctors of all specialties. The current review is based on an analysis of current literature data and clinical guidelines. It covers various aspects of outpatient patient management and focuses on conservative therapy. The lack of an adequate diagnostic algorithm often leads to complications and, ultimately, death. The dynamic nature of the disease, the variability of clinical manifestations and the course of the pathological process require special attention. Both short-term and long-term survival of the patient depends on careful observation. Postoperative management of patients with acute aortic dissection of type A is entirely entrusted to the outpatient unit, which, due to the absence of the main aspects of the strategy in modern clinical recommendations, is not always prepared for the curation of this complex cohort of patients. The lack of experience in managing this pathology by outpatient hospital doctors causes significant difficulties in interpreting instrumental diagnostic methods, which leads to further erroneous tactics with the development of long-term complications. Due to the lack of a unified scheme of drug therapy, the question of prescribing drugs in these patients, who often receive a fairly large range of medications for concomitant pathology, remains open. These factors contribute to polyprogmasia or vice versa – insufficient volume of drug therapy, which further leads to the progression of the disease. As a result of insufficient emphasis on the basics of outpatient management of this cohort of patients, a whole complex of problems arises, leading to unsatisfactory treatment results and increased healthcare costs for their subsequent solution. The purpose of the review is to highlight the main problems of this issue from the point of view of evidence-based medicine.

D-dimer for screening of aortic dissection in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Acute aortic dissection (AAD) with concurrent ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is relatively rare and sometimes overlooked. As D-dimer testing has been reported to have high sensitivity to diagnose AAD in a clinical scale, Aortic Dissection Detection Risk Score (ADD-RS), a point-of-care D-dimer analyzer capable of measuring in 10 min would be useful to deny AAD with concurrent STEMI. However, an optimal cut-off value of D-dimer in such population remains unclear. Therefore, the aim of this study was to elucidate the optimal D-dimer threshold in patients clinically diagnosed with STEMI.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted at two tertiary care centers between 2014 and 2019. Patients clinically diagnosed with STEMI who underwent serum D-dimer measurement on hospital arrival were included. The primary outcome was the diagnosis of AAD. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for D-dimer values to diagnose AAD was evaluated, particularly in patients with low to moderate risks of AAD (1 of ADD-RS). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated with several cut-off values.

RESULTS

A total of 322 patients were included, and 28 were diagnosed with AAD. The AUROC for D-dimer to diagnose AAD was 0.970 (95% confidence interval: 0.948-0.993) in 262 patients with 1 of ADD-RS. If D-dimer ≥750 ng/mL was used as a cut-off value, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 100%, 86.4%, 37.7%, and 100%, respectively. AAD could be denied in 209 (79.8%) patients using the cut-off value (D-dimer <750 ng/mL).

CONCLUSIONS

Serum D-dimer ≥750 ng/mL exhibited high sensitivity and NPV to diagnose AAD with concurrent STEMI, while the ADD-RS originally utilized ≥500 ng/mL as a cut-off for any suspected AAD. A point-of-care D-dimer measurement with the new cut-off would be useful to rule-out AAD among patients with STEMI.

Aortic dissection in Indonesia male: 3 case report

Background

Aortic dissection (AD) is a life-threatening rare condition caused by a tear in the aortic wall which requires urgent surgery.

Case presentation

3 Indonesian males obtained a CT angiography (CTA) showing a picture of AD which was confirmed using the Stanford and De Bakey classification. The patient was successful in undergoing TEVAR and open-heart surgery which 2 patients survived and 1 patient died.

Discussion

The speed of handling in AD is the key to successful management of AD supported by an understanding of the signs and symptoms and results of thoracoabdominal CTA.

Conclusion

The ability to interpret CTA results and understand AD sign symptoms is very helpful in minimizing mortality.

Point-of-care ultrasound for stroke patients in the emergency room

Stroke requires rapid determination of the cause to provide timely and appropriate initial management. Various ultrasonographic techniques have been evaluated as ways to determine the cause of stroke; among them, carotid artery ultrasonography is particularly useful since it provides considerable information within a short time period when used to evaluate a specific site. In the emergency room, carotid artery ultrasonography can be used to diagnose internal carotid artery stenosis, predict an occluded vessel, and infer the cause of ischemic stroke. Additionally, carotid artery ultrasonography can diagnose different conditions including subclavian artery steal syndrome, bow hunter's stroke, Takayasu's arteritis, moyamoya disease, and dural arteriovenous fistula. Furthermore, patients with ischemic stroke with a pulse deficit or hypotension must be differentiated from acute type A aortic dissection, which requires emergency surgery; carotid artery ultrasonography can immediately differentiate between the two conditions by identifying the intimal flap of the common carotid artery. The following article provides an overview of carotid artery ultrasonography performed as point-of-care ultrasound in the emergency room in patients with suspected stroke.

Application value of preoperative dual-source computed tomography in assessing the rupture site of thoracic aortic dissection

Objective

To investigate the application value of dual-source computed tomography (DSCT) in preoperative assessment the rupture site of an thoracic aortic dissection (TAD).

Methods

A retrospective analysis of preoperative DSCT, multislice computed tomography (MSCT), and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) results of 150 patients with suspected TAD in our hospital was conducted, and the intraoperative findings or interventional treatment results were used as the diagnostic gold standard.

Results

Of all 150 suspected TAD patients, 123 patients were confirmed to have TAD. The rupture site of TAD was in the ascending aorta in 46 patients, in the aortic arch in 13 patients, and in the descending aorta in 64 patients. The sensitivity of DSCT, MSCT, and TTE for locating the rupture site of the TAD was 100%, 93.5%, and 89.5%, respectively, and the specificity was 100%, 88.9%, and 81.5%. The differences were statistically significant. The distance between the actual rupture site and the one diagnosed by DSCT, MSCT, and TTE was 1.9 ± 1.2 mm, 5.1 ± 2.7 mm, and 7.8 ± 3.5 mm, respectively; the latter two were significantly worse than DSCT. The size of the rupture site diagnosed by DSCT, MSCT, and TTE was 1.5 ± 0.8 cm, 1.7 ± 0.9 cm, and 1.9 ± 1.0 cm, respectively. The size of the rupture site diagnosed by DSCT was not significantly different from the actual size of 1.4 ± 0.7 cm, while those by MSCT and TTE were.

Conclusion

DSCT has high sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing the rupture site of TAD and can clearly locate the rupture site. It can be a preferred imaging method for TAD.

D-Dimer Tests in the Emergency Department: Current Insights

In the Emergency Medicine setting, D-dimer is currently employed in the diagnostic assessment of suspected venous thromboembolism and aortic syndrome. The nonspecific symptoms reported by patients, like chest pain, dyspnea or syncope, uncover a wide range of differential diagnosis, spanning from mild to life-threatening conditions. Therefore, we assumed the perspective of the Emergency Physician and, in this narrative review, we reported a brief presentation of the epidemiology of these symptoms and the characteristics of patients, in whom we could suspect the aforementioned pathologies. We also reported in which patients D-dimer gives useful information. In fact, when the probability of the disease is high, the D-dimer level is futile. On the contrary, given the low specificity of the test, when the probability of the disease is very low, a false-positive value of the D-dimer only increases the risk of overtesting. Patients with low to moderate probability really benefit from the D-dimer testing, in order to prevent the execution of expensive and potentially dangerous imaging tests. In the second part of the review, we focused on the prognostic value of the test in septic patients. The early prognostic stratification of septic patients remains a challenge for the Emergency Physician, in the absence of a definite biomarker or score to rely on. Therefore, we need several parameters for the early identification of patients at risk of an adverse prognosis and the D-dimer may play a role in this demanding task. SARS COVID-19 patients represent an emerging reality, where the role of the D-dimer for prognostic stratification could be relevant. In fact, in patients with severe forms of this disease, the D-dimer reaches very high values, which appear to parallel the course of respiratory failure. Whether the test may add useful information for the management of these patients remains to be determined.

Can D-Dimer in Low-Risk Patients Exclude Aortic Dissection in the Emergency Department?

BACKGROUND

Aortic dissection (AD) is a challenging diagnosis associated with severe mortality. However, acute AD is a rare clinical entity and can be overevaluated in the emergency department. D-dimer, both alone and in combination with the Aortic Dissection Detection Risk Score (ADD-RS), has been studied as a tool to evaluate for AD.

CLINICAL QUESTION

Can a negative D-dimer in low-risk patients exclude AD in the emergency department?

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Retrieved studies included three systematic review and meta-analyses and two prospective cohort studies. D-dimer was found to be highly sensitive for acute AD, with a sensitivity of 98.0%. The ADD-RS was also highly sensitive (95.7%) for AD. Two meta-analyses reported a combination of a negative D-dimer and ADD-RS < 1 to have a pooled sensitivity of 99.9% and 100% for acute aortic syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither D-dimer nor the ADD-RS alone provides adequate sensitivity to exclude acute AD. However, a negative D-dimer combined with an ADD-RS < 1 is likely sufficient to rule out AD. Even with these findings, physicians must place clinical judgment above laboratory testing or scoring systems when deciding whether to pursue a diagnosis of acute AD.

National survey of emergency physicians on the risk stratification and acceptable miss rate of acute aortic syndrome

OBJECTIVES

One in four cases of acute aortic syndrome are missed. This national survey examined Canadian Emergency physicians' opinion on risk stratification, the need for a clinical decision aid to risk stratify patients, and the required sensitivity of such a tool.

METHODS

We surveyed 1,556 members of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. We used a modified Dillman technique with a prenotification email and up to three survey attempts using electronic mail. Physicians were asked 21 questions about demographics, importance of certain high-risk features, investigation options, threshold for investigation, and if a clinical decision tool is required.

RESULTS

We had a response rate of 32%. Respondents were 66% male, and 49% practicing >10 years, with 59% in an academic teaching hospital. A total of 93% reported a need for a clinical decision aid to risk stratify for acute aortic syndrome. A total of 99.6% of physicians were pragmatic accepting a non-zero miss-rate, two-thirds accepting <1%, and the remaining accepting a higher miss-rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Our national survey determined that emergency physicians would use a highly sensitive clinical decision aid to determine which patients are at low, medium, or high-risk for acute aortic syndrome. The majority of clinicians have a low threshold (<1%) for investigating for acute aortic syndrome, but accept that a zero miss-rate is not feasible.

Murmurs other than the early diastolic murmur in aortic dissection

The purpose of this review is to draw attention to the presence and significance of murmurs other than the murmur of aortic regurgitation, in patients with aortic dissection. For that purpose, a literature search was conducted using Pubmed and Googlescholar. The search terms were "dissecting aneurysm of the aorta", "systolic murmurs", "ejection systolic murmurs", "holosystolic" murmurs, "continuous murmurs", and "Austin-Flint" murmur. Murmurs other than the murmur of aortic regurgitation, which were associated with aortic dissection, fell into the categories of systolic murmurs, some of which were holosystolic, and continuous murmurs, the latter attributable to fistulae between the dissecting aneurysm and the left atrium, right atrium, and the pulmonary artery, respectively. Mid-diastolic murmurs were also identified, and these typically occurred in association with both the systolic and the early diastolic murmurs. Among patients with systolic murmurs clinical features which enhanced the pre-test probability of aortic dissection included back pain, stroke, paraplegia, unilateral absence of pulses, interarm differences in blood pressure, hypertension, shock, bicuspid aortic valve, aortic coarctation, Turner's syndrome, and high D-dimer levels, respectively. In the absence of the murmur of aortic regurgitation timely diagnosis of aortic dissection could be expedited by increased attention to parameters which enhance pretest probability of aortic dissection. That logic would apply even if the only murmurs which were elicited were systolic murmurs.

Diagnosis and management of acute aortic syndromes in the emergency department

Acute aortic syndromes (AASs) are deadly cardiovascular emergencies involving the thoracic aorta. AASs are relatively rare conditions, have unspecific signs and symptoms (including truncal pain, syncope, neurologic deficit and limb ischemia) and require contrast-enhanced tomography angiography (CTA) of the chest and abdomen for conclusive diagnosis and subsequent therapeutic planning. In the Emergency Department (ED), most patients with potential signs/symptoms of AASs are finally found affected by other alternative diagnoses. Hence, misdiagnosis and delayed diagnosis of AASs are major concerns. In critically ill patients, decision to perform CTA is usually straightforward, as exam benefits largely outweigh risks. In patients with ST-tract elevation on ECG, suspected primary ischemic stroke and in stable patients (representing the most prevalent ED scenarios), proper selection of patients necessitating CTA is cumbersome, due to concurrent risks of misdiagnosis and over-testing. Available studies support an algorithm integrating clinical probability assessment, bedside echocardiography and D-dimer (if the clinical probability is not high). Therapeutic management includes medical therapy for all patients including an opioid and anti-impulse drugs (a beta-blocker and a vasodilator), targeting a heart rate of 60 bpm and systolic blood pressure of 100-120 mmHg. Patients with AASs involving the ascending aorta are likely candidate for urgent surgery, and complicated type B AASs (severe aortic dilatation, impending or frank rupture, organ malperfusion, refractory pain, severe hypertension) necessitate evaluation for urgent endovascular treatment. For uncomplicated type B AASs, optimal medical therapy is the current standard of care.

A simple intervention to reduce your chance of missing an acute aortic dissection

INTRODUCTION

Acute aortic dissection (AAD) is a time sensitive, difficult to diagnose, aortic emergency. We sought to explore the quality of history taking in AAD and assess its impact on misdiagnosis.

METHODS

We studied a retrospective cohort of patients >18 years old who presented to two tertiary care emergency departments from January 1st 2004 - December 31st 2012 and were diagnosed with an acute aortic dissection (AAD) on CT, MRI or TEE. Trained reviewers' extracted data using a standardized data collection form. The definitions of 5 pain characteristics - character, onset, duration, quality, and radiation were defined a priori.

RESULTS

Data were collected for 194 cases of acute aortic dissection with a mean age of 65(SD 14.1) and 66.7% male, 34(17.6%) missed on initial presentation. Only 20(14.8%) patients were asked all 5 questions. The most common initial incorrect diagnosis were acute coronary syndrome (16, 47%), pulmonary embolism (5, 14.7%) and stroke (4, 11.7%). If <2 questions were asked 1 in 5 cases were missed, 4 times greater than if >2 were asked (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians should ask and document the character, onset, duration, radiation and severity of pain in any patient presenting with chest, abdominal or flank pain. A focused history still remains the keystone to reducing misdiagnosis.

Systematic Review of Aortic Dissection Detection Risk Score Plus D-dimer for Diagnostic Rule-out Of Suspected Acute Aortic Syndromes

OBJECTIVES

In patients at low clinical probability of acute aortic syndromes (AASs), decision on advanced aortic imaging is cumbersome. Integration of the aortic dissection detection risk score (ADD-RS) with D-dimer (DD) provides a potential pipeline for standardized diagnostic rule-out. We systematically reviewed and summarized supporting data.

METHODS

Cross-sectional studies assessing integration of ADD-RS with DD for diagnosis of AASs were identified on MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web Of Science databases. Two reviewers independently screened articles, assessed quality, and extracted data. The quality of design and reporting was evaluated with the QUADAS-2 and STARD tools. Individual patient data were obtained, to allow analysis of both conventional (500 ng/mL) and age-adjusted (DD_age-adj ) DD cutoffs. Data were summarized for four diagnostic strategies combining ADD-RS = 0 or ≤ 1, with DD < 500 ng/mL or < DD_age-adj . The statistical heterogeneity of the diagnostic variables was estimated with Higgins' I² . Pooled values were calculated for variables showing nonsignificant heterogeneity.

RESULTS

After screening of 680 studies, four articles (including a total of 3,804 patients) met inclusion criteria. One prospective study provided a low risk of bias/applicability concerns, while methodologic limitations were found in the other three retrospective studies. Statistical heterogeneity was negligible for sensitivity and negative likelihood ratio (LR) values and significant for specificity and positive LR values of all diagnostic strategies. Pooled sensitivity was 99.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 99.3% to 100%, I²  = 0) for ADD-RS = 0 and DD < 500 ng/mL or < DD_age-adj , 98.9% (95% CI = 97.9% to 99.9%, I²  = 0) for ADD-RS ≤ 1 and DD < 500 ng/mL, and 97.6% (95% CI = 96.3% to 98.9%, I²  = 0) for ADD-RS ≤ 1 and DD < DD_age-adj .

CONCLUSIONS

Despite methodologic limitations, integration of ADD-RS = 0 or ≤ 1 with DD < 500 ng/mL shows negligible heterogeneity and consistently high sensitivity across studies, thus supporting reliability for diagnostic rule-out of AASs. Data supporting ADD-RS = 0 plus DD_age-adj appear preliminary and require further scrutiny.

Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke Secondary to Acute Aortic Dissection

Aortic dissection carries a high mortality of up to 40% at the time of initial dissection and an additional 1% per hour the dissection is untreated. Patients with acute aortic dissection most commonly present with chest or back pain. Less frequently, it manifests without pain with predominant neurologic symptoms secondary to an acute stroke. We present the case of a 53-year-old male presenting with acute onset aphasia and right-sided weakness. Incidentally, CT angiography of his neck revealed a carotid artery dissection, which was found an extension of a Stanford type A acute aortic dissection resulting in a large vessel occlusion stroke. The patient's concomitant pathologies resulted in uncertainty as to the priority of management between the interventional neurology and cardiothoracic surgery services, ultimately resulting in the transfer of the patient to an aorta specialist at an outside facility. This case highlights several areas of difficulty in the management of patients with presenting with both large vessel occlusion stroke and acute aortic dissection and the need for consideration of acute aortic dissection in patients presenting with symptoms consistent with large vessel occlusion stroke. Optimal blood pressure control is unknown, as is the ideal timing of aortic repair and the potential for endovascular therapy for large vessel occlusion stroke in the setting of acute aortic dissection. Emergency physicians must rapidly engage with neurology, interventional neurology, and cardiothoracic surgery to determine appropriate interventions and timing of operative repair. The emergency physician must consider acute aortic dissection in patients presenting with signs and symptoms concerning for large vessel occlusion stroke, even if they have no complaint of chest pain, as administration of thrombolytics in these patients may be deadly.

Early Screening for Aortic Dissection With Point-of-Care Ultrasound by Emergency Physicians: A Prospective Pilot Study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effect of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) use by emergency physician (EPs) on the diagnosis, treatment, and safety of POCUS in patients with aortic dissection (AD) in emergency settings.

METHODS

Patients presenting to the emergency department of West China Hospital of Sichuan University with suspected AD from July 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016 were divided into a control group and an ultrasound (US) group. The control group was evaluated by routine procedures for triage, diagnosis, and treatment. In addition, an EP POCUS examination was performed in the US group. The patients in the US group were furtherly divided into subgroup A and subgroup B according to the Stanford type of AD. The sensitivity and specificity of EP POCUS compared to computed tomographic angiography (CTA) were compared. The door-to-CTA examination time, door-to-diagnosis time, door-to-targeted treatment time, and outcome were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 127 patients were enrolled: 72 in the US group and 55 in the control group. In the US group, compared with CTA, the sensitivity of EP POCUS was 86.4%, and the specificity was 100.0%. The door-to-diagnosis times were 10.5 minutes in the US group and 79.0 minutes in the control group (P < .05). The door-to-CTA examination time and the door-to-targeted-treatment time had no differences between the US and control groups (P > .05). The in-hospital mortality and mortality within 3 months after discharge were 4.2% and 25.0% in the US group and 9.1% and 20.8% in the control group (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CTA, EP POCUS in patients suspected of having AD is highly sensitive and specific and has shown no adverse effect on the treatment start-up time, in-hospital mortality, and mortality within 3 months after discharge.

Accuracy of aortic dissection detection risk score alone or with D-dimer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of the acute aortic dissection detection risk score (ADD-RS) alone or with D-dimer as a screening test to exclude acute aortic syndrome.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies examining the diagnostic accuracy of ADD-RS. We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials up to 12 December 2018.

RESULTS

We identified nine studies involving 26,598 patients for ADD-RS alone and 3421 patients with D-dimer. Overall, the methodological quality based on the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 was moderate to high. Bivariate meta-analyses showed that the pooled sensitivities were 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90, 0.96) at the threshold of ADD-RS ≥1, 0.46 (95% CI, 0.34, 0.59) at ADD-RS ≥2, 1.00 (95% CI 0.99, 1.00) at ADD-RS ≥1 with D-dimer and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97, 1.00) at ADD-RS ≥2 with D-dimer. For the low prevalence population, failure rate and efficiency were 0.8% and 38.3% at ADD-RS ≥1, 0.03% and 14.5% at ADD-RS ≥1 with D-dimer, and 0.1% and 33.6% at ADD-RS ≥2 with D-dimer, respectively. For the high prevalence population, failure rate and efficiency were 3.8% and 33.3% at ADD-RS ≥1, 0.2% and 12.3% at ADD-RS ≥1 with D-dimer and 0.6% and 28.4% at ADD-RS ≥2 with D-dimer, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

ADD-RS alone or with D-dimer was a useful screening test with high sensitivity to exclude acute aortic syndrome. However, the optimal threshold of ADD-RS alone or with D-dimer may depend on the clinical setting.

Familial Aortopathies - State of the Art Review

Aortopathies are conditions that result in aortic dilatation, aneurysm formation and dissection. Familial aortopathies (perhaps better known as heritable thoracic aortic aneurysm and dissection, h-TAAD, as not all have a positive family history) are recognised to have an underlying genetic cause and affect the aorta, predisposing it to the above pathologies. These conditions can also affect the extra-aortic vasculature, particularly large elastic arteries and other body systems. Mutations in a number of genes have been associated with h-TAAD. However, not all affected families have a pathogenic gene variant identified-highlighting the importance of a three-generational family history and the likely role of both environmental factors and future gene discoveries in furthering knowledge. Survival has improved over the last few decades, essentially due to surgical intervention. The benefit of identifying affected individuals depends upon a regular surveillance program and timely referral for surgery before complications such as dissection. Further research is required to appreciate fully the effects of individual gene variants and improve evidence for prophylactic medical therapy, as well as to understand the effect of h-TAAD on quality of life and life choices, particularly around exercise and pregnancy, for affected individuals. This will be complemented by laboratory-based research that seeks to understand the tissue pathways that underlie development of arterial pathology, ideally providing targets for novel medical therapies and a means of non-invasively identifying individuals at increased vascular risk to reduce dissection, which remains a devastating life-threatening event.

Integrated Use of Conventional Chest Radiography Cannot Rule Out Acute Aortic Syndromes in Emergency Department Patients at Low Clinical Probability

OBJECTIVES

Guidelines recommend chest radiography (CR) in the workup of suspected acute aortic syndromes (AASs) if the pretest clinical probability is low. However, the diagnostic impact of CR integration for the rule-in and rule-out of AASs is unknown.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of the ADvISED multicenter study. Emergency department outpatients were eligible if an AAS was clinically suspected. Clinical probability was defined with the aortic dissection detection risk score (ADD-RS). CR was evaluated blindly by a radiologist, who judged on mediastinum enlargement (ME) and other signs.

RESULTS

In 2014 through 2016, a total of 1,129 patients were enrolled and 1,030 were analyzed, including 48 (4.7%) with AASs. ADD-RS/ME and ADD-RS/any CR sign (aCRs) integration were more accurate than ADD-RS alone (area under the curve = 0.8 and 0.78 vs. 0.66, p < 0.001). The sensitivity and specificity of the integrated strategies were 66.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 51.5% to 79.9%) and 82.5% (95% CI = 79.9% to 84.8%) for ADD-RS/ME and 68.8% (95% CI = 53.6% to 80.9%) and 76.5% (95% CI = 73.7% to 79.1%) for ADD-RS/aCRs, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of CR per se were 54.2% (95% CI = 39.2% to 68.6%) and 92.4% (95% CI = 90.5% to 93.9%) for ME and 60.4% (95% CI = 45.3% to 74.2%) and 85.2% (95% CI = 82.9% to 87.4%) for aCRs. The agreement (κ) between attending physicians and radiologists for ME was 0.44 (95% CI = 0.35 to 0.54). ADD-RS/ME rule-in (ADD-RS ≤ 1 and ME-present, or ADD-RS > 1) applied to 204 versus 130 patients with ADD-RS > 1, including 14 with AAS and 60 false-positives (FP). ADD-RS/aCRs rule-in (ADD-RS ≤ 1 and aCRs-present, or ADD-RS > 1) applied to 264 patients, including 15 with AAS and 119 FP. ADD-RS/ME rule-out (ADD-RS ≤ 1 and ME-absent) applied to 826 (80.2%) patients, including 16 with AAS (33.3% of cases). ADD-RS/aCRs rule-out (ADD-RS ≤ 1 and aCRs-absent) applied to 766 patients (74.4%), including 15 with AAS (31.3% of cases).

CONCLUSIONS

CR integration with clinical probability assessment showed modest rule-in efficiency and insufficient sensitivity for conclusive rule-out.

Discriminatory Value of the Ascending Aorta Diameter in Suspected Acute Type A Aortic Dissection

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to determine if ascending aorta (AscAo) diameters measured by noncontrast computed tomography (CT) allow for meaningful discrimination between patients with and without type A aortic dissection (TAAD), ideally with 100% sensitivity.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of cases of TAAD, as well as controls, undergoing evaluation for TAAD with CT aortography, presenting to 21 emergency departments within an integrated health system between 2007 and 2015. AscAo diameters were determined using axial noncontrast CT images at the level of the right main pulmonary artery by two readers. AscAo diameters were additionally normalized for age, sex, and body surface area (assessed by a Z-score, which is the number of standard deviations between the observed and expected AscAo diameters). Overall model discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Comparative discrimination was assessed using both the change in AUC (∆AUC) and the continuous net reclassification index (NRI).

RESULTS

A total of 230 cases of TAAD and 325 controls were included in the study. The median ages for cases and controls were 65 and 62 years, and the median AscAo diameters were 50 and 35 mm, respectively. The raw and normalized AscAo diameters demonstrated similarly excellent discrimination (AUCs of 0.96 vs. 0.97, respectively; ∆AUC = 0.01, p = 0.09) and an NRI of 0.30 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.13-0.47), both indicating small incremental improvements in classification with the use of the normalized AscAo measures. A raw AscAo diameter of 34 mm and a normalized Z-score of 1.84 both yielded 100% sensitivity for TAAD, with respective specificities of 35% (95% CI = 29.6%-40.2%) and 67% (95% CI = 61.7%-72.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly all patients with TAAD appear to have enlarged AscAo diameters as measured by noncontrast CT, whereas most patients with suspected but absent TAAD have relatively normal AscAo diameters. Both raw and normalized AscAo measures provided relatively comparable discriminatory value. If validated, these data may be useful in adjudicating risk among patients with suspected TAAD in whom a criterion standard test is unavailable, nondiagnostic, or contraindicated.

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.

Variation in emergency department use of computed tomography for investigation of acute aortic dissection

INTRODUCTION

Acute aortic dissection (AAD) is a life-threatening condition making early diagnosis critical. Although 90% present with acute pain, the myriad of associated symptoms can make diagnosis a challenge. Our objective was to assess how we are using computed tomography to rule out acute aortic dissection specifically rate of ordering, diagnostic yield, and variation in practice.

METHODS

We included consecutive adult patients presenting to two tertiary academic care emergency departments over one calendar year presenting with non-traumatic chest, back, abdominal, or flank pain. Primary outcome was rate of CT thorax/abdomen ordered to rule out AAD. Secondary outcome was variation in CT ordering, measured comparing number of CTs ordered per physician. Sample size of 12 per group was calculated based on an expected delta in mean CT ordered of 5 and a within group SD of 3.

RESULTS

Thirty-one thousand two hundred one patients presented with truncal pain during the study period, 22,729 were included (mean 47 years, SD 18.5 years, 56.2% female); prevalence of AAD (N = 4) was 0.02%. CT was ordered to rule out AAD in 175 (0.7%) patients (mean 62 years, SD 16.5, 50.6% female). Significant variation between physicians ordering was found, with individual physicians ordering varying from 0.6 to 12%.

CONCLUSIONS

Current rate of imaging for acute aortic dissection is low and potentially inefficient, with a large variation in practice. These findings suggest potential for more standardized and efficient use of CT for the diagnosis of acute aortic dissection.