STUDY OBJECTIVE: Acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is a medical emergency that requires prompt diagnosis and treatment at specialized centers. We sought to determine the frequency and etiology of false positive activation of a regional AAS network in a patient population emergently transferred for suspected AAS. METHODS: We evaluated 150 consecutive patients transferred from community emergency departments directly to our Cardiac Intensive Care Unit (CICU) with a diagnosis of suspected AAS between March, 2010 and August, 2011. A final diagnosis of confirmed acute Type A, acute Type B dissection, and false positive suspicion of dissection was made in 63 (42%), 70 (46.7%) and 17 (11.3%) patients respectively. RESULTS: Of the 17 false positive transfers, ten (58.8%) were suspected Type A dissection and seven (41.2%) were suspected Type B dissection. The initial hospital diagnosis in 15 (88.2%) patients was made by a computed tomography (CT) scan and 10 (66.6%) of these patients required repeat imaging with an ECG-synchronized CT to definitively rule out AAS. Five (29.4%) patients had prior history of open or endovascular aortic repair. Overall in-hospital mortality was 9.3%. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of AAS is confirmed in most patients emergently transferred for suspected AAS. False positive activation in this setting is driven primarily by uncertainty secondary to motion-artifact of the ascending aorta and the presence of complex anatomy following prior aortic intervention. Network-wide standardization of imaging strategies, and improved sharing of imaging may further improve triage of this complex patient population.
STUDY OBJECTIVE:Acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is a medical emergency that requires prompt diagnosis and treatment at specialized centers. We sought to determine the frequency and etiology of false positive activation of a regional AAS network in a patient population emergently transferred for suspected AAS. METHODS: We evaluated 150 consecutive patients transferred from community emergency departments directly to our Cardiac Intensive Care Unit (CICU) with a diagnosis of suspected AAS between March, 2010 and August, 2011. A final diagnosis of confirmed acute Type A, acute Type B dissection, and false positive suspicion of dissection was made in 63 (42%), 70 (46.7%) and 17 (11.3%) patients respectively. RESULTS: Of the 17 false positive transfers, ten (58.8%) were suspected Type A dissection and seven (41.2%) were suspected Type B dissection. The initial hospital diagnosis in 15 (88.2%) patients was made by a computed tomography (CT) scan and 10 (66.6%) of these patients required repeat imaging with an ECG-synchronized CT to definitively rule out AAS. Five (29.4%) patients had prior history of open or endovascular aortic repair. Overall in-hospital mortality was 9.3%. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of AAS is confirmed in most patients emergently transferred for suspected AAS. False positive activation in this setting is driven primarily by uncertainty secondary to motion-artifact of the ascending aorta and the presence of complex anatomy following prior aortic intervention. Network-wide standardization of imaging strategies, and improved sharing of imaging may further improve triage of this complex patient population.
Authors: Justus E Roos; Jürgen K Willmann; Dominik Weishaupt; Mario Lachat; Borut Marincek; Paul R Hilfiker Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Kevin M Harris; Craig E Strauss; Sue Duval; Barbara T Unger; Timothy J Kroshus; Subbarao Inampudi; Jonathan D Cohen; Christopher Kapsner; Lori L Boland; Frazier Eales; Eric Rohman; Quirino G Orlandi; Thomas F Flavin; Vibhu R Kshettry; Kevin J Graham; Alan T Hirsch; Timothy D Henry Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2010-07
Authors: Ville Artto; Jukka Putaala; Daniel Strbian; Atte Meretoja; Katja Piironen; Ron Liebkind; Heli Silvennoinen; Sari Atula; Olli Häppölä Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2011-10-14 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Timothy D Henry; Scott W Sharkey; M Nicholas Burke; Ivan J Chavez; Kevin J Graham; Christopher R Henry; Daniel L Lips; James D Madison; Katie M Menssen; Michael R Mooney; Marc C Newell; Wes R Pedersen; Anil K Poulose; Jay H Traverse; Barbara T Unger; Yale L Wang; David M Larson Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-08-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Henry H Ting; Charanjit S Rihal; Bernard J Gersh; Luis H Haro; Christine M Bjerke; Ryan J Lennon; Choon-Chern Lim; John F Bresnahan; Allan S Jaffe; David R Holmes; Malcolm R Bell Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-08-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: P G Hagan; C A Nienaber; E M Isselbacher; D Bruckman; D J Karavite; P L Russman; A Evangelista; R Fattori; T Suzuki; J K Oh; A G Moore; J F Malouf; L A Pape; C Gaca; U Sechtem; S Lenferink; H J Deutsch; H Diedrichs; J Marcos y Robles; A Llovet; D Gilon; S K Das; W F Armstrong; G M Deeb; K A Eagle Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-02-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Marian P LaMonte; Mona N Bahouth; Laurence S Magder; Richard L Alcorta; Robert R Bass; Brian J Browne; Douglas J Floccare; Wade R Gaasch Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2008-12-19 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Graham Nichol; Tom P Aufderheide; Brian Eigel; Robert W Neumar; Keith G Lurie; Vincent J Bufalino; Clifton W Callaway; Venugopal Menon; Robert R Bass; Benjamin S Abella; Michael Sayre; Cynthia M Dougherty; Edward M Racht; Monica E Kleinman; Robert E O'Connor; John P Reilly; Eric W Ossmann; Eric Peterson Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-01-14 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Alice Wielandner; Dietrich Beitzke; Ruediger Schernthaner; Florian Wolf; Christina Langenberger; Alfred Stadler; Christian Loewe Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Varut Vardhanabhuti; Edward Nicol; Gareth Morgan-Hughes; Carl A Roobottom; Giles Roditi; Mark C K Hamilton; Russell K Bull; Franchesca Pugliese; Michelle C Williams; James Stirrup; Simon Padley; Andrew Taylor; L Ceri Davies; Roger Bury; Stephen Harden Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 3.039