Search

Background: In patients complaining common symptoms such as chest/abdominal/back pain or syncope, acute aortic syndromes (AAS) are rare underlying causes. AAS diagnosis requires urgent advanced aortic imaging (AAI), mostly computed tomography angiography. However, patient selection for AAI poses conflicting risks of misdiagnosis and overtesting., Objectives: We assessed the safety and efficiency of a diagnostic protocol integrating clinical data with point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) and d-dimer (single/age-adjusted cutoff), to select patients for AAI., Methods: This prospective study involved 12 Emergency Departments from 5 countries. POCUS findings were integrated with a guideline-compliant clinical score, to define the integrated pre-test probability (iPTP) of AAS. If iPTP was high, urgent AAI was requested. If iPTP was low and d-dimer was negative, AAS was ruled out. Patients were followed for 30 days, to adjudicate outcomes., Results: Within 1979 enrolled patients, 176 (9 %) had an AAS. POCUS led to net reclassification improvement of 20 % (24 %/-4 % for events/non-events, P < 0.001) over clinical score alone. Median time to AAS diagnosis was 60 min if POCUS was positive vs 118 if negative (P = 0.042). Within 941 patients satisfying rule-out criteria, the 30-day incidence of AAS was 0 % (95 % CI, 0-0.41 %); without POCUS, 2 AAS were potentially missed. Protocol rule-out efficiency was 48 % (95 % CI, 46-50 %) and AAI was averted in 41 % of patients. Using age-adjusted d-dimer, rule-out efficiency was 54 % (difference 6 %, 95 % CI, 4-9 %, vs standard cutoff)., Conclusions: The integrated algorithm allowed rapid triage of high-probability patients, while providing safe and efficient rule-out of AAS. Age-adjusted d-dimer maximized efficiency., Clinical Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04430400., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background When acute aortic syndromes (AASs) are suspected, pretest clinical probability assessment and d-dimer (DD) testing are diagnostic options allowing standardized care. Guidelines suggest use of a 12-item/3-category score (aortic dissection detection) and a DD cutoff of 500 ng/mL. However, a simplified assessment tool and a more specific DD cutoff could be advantageous. Methods and Results In a prospective derivation cohort (n=1848), 6 items identified by logistic regression (thoracic aortic aneurysm, severe pain, sudden pain, pulse deficit, neurologic deficit, hypotension), composed a simplified score (AORTAs) assigning 2 points to hypotension and 1 to the other items. AORTAs≤1 and ≥2 defined low and high clinical probability, respectively. Age-adjusted DD was calculated as years/age × 10 ng/mL (minimum 500). The AORTAs score and AORTAs≤1/age-adjusted DD rule were validated in 2 patient cohorts: a high-prevalence retrospective cohort (n=1035; 22% AASs) and a low-prevalence prospective cohort (n=447; 11% AASs) subjected to 30-day follow-up. The AUC of the AORTAs score was 0.729 versus 0.697 of the aortic dissection detection score ( P =0.005). AORTAs score assessment reclassified 16.6% to 25.1% of patients, with significant net reclassification improvement of 10.3% to 32.7% for AASs and -8.6 to -17% for alternative diagnoses. In both cohorts, AORTAs≥2 had superior sensitivity and slightly lower specificity than aortic dissection detection ≥2. In the prospective validation cohort, AORTAs≤1/age-adjusted DD had a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 48.6%, and an efficiency of 43.3%. Conclusions AORTAs is a simplified score with increased sensitivity, improved AAS classification, and minor trade-off in specificity, amenable to integration with age-adjusted DD for diagnostic rule-out.

Aims: The diagnosis of acute aortic syndromes (AASs) is challenging and requires integrated strategies. Transthoracic focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) is endorsed by guidelines as a first-line/triage tool allowing rapid bedside assessment of the aorta. However, the performance of FoCUS in the European Society of Cardiology-recommended workup of AASs awaits validation., Methods and Results: This was a prespecified subanalysis of the ADvISED multicentre prospective study. Patients with suspected AAS underwent FoCUS for detection of direct/indirect signs of AAS. Clinical probability assessment was performed with the aortic dissection detection risk score (ADD-RS). Case adjudication was based on advanced imaging, surgery, autopsy, or 14-day follow-up. An AAS was diagnosed in 146 (17.4%) of 839 patients. Presence of direct FoCUS signs had a sensitivity and specificity of 45.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 37-53.6%] and 97.4% (95% CI 95.9-98.4%), while presence of any FoCUS sign had a sensitivity and specificity of 89% (95% CI 82.8-93.6%) and 74.5% (95% CI 71-77.7%) for AAS. The additive value of FoCUS was most evident within low clinical probability (ADD-RS ≤1). Herein, direct FoCUS signs were identified in 40 (4.8%) patients (P < 0.001), including 29 with AAS. ADD-RS ≤1 plus negative FoCUS for AAS rule-out had a sensitivity of 93.8% (95% CI 88.6-97.1%) and a failure rate of 1.9% (95% CI 0.9-3.6%). Addition of negative D-dimer led to a failure rate of 0% (95% CI 0-1.2%)., Conclusion: FoCUS has additive value in the workup of AASs. Direct FoCUS signs can rapidly identify patients requiring advanced imaging despite low clinical probability. In integrated bundles, negative FoCUS is useful for rule-out of AASs., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Acute aortic syndromes (AASs) are rare and severe cardiovascular emergencies with unspecific symptoms. For AASs, both misdiagnosis and overtesting are key concerns, and standardized diagnostic strategies may help physicians to balance these risks. D-dimer (DD) is highly sensitive for AAS but is inadequate as a stand-alone test. Integration of pretest probability assessment with DD testing is feasible, but the safety and efficiency of such a diagnostic strategy are currently unknown., Methods: In a multicenter prospective observational study involving 6 hospitals in 4 countries from 2014 to 2016, consecutive outpatients were eligible if they had ≥1 of the following: chest/abdominal/back pain, syncope, perfusion deficit, and if AAS was in the differential diagnosis. The tool for pretest probability assessment was the aortic dissection detection risk score (ADD-RS, 0-3) per current guidelines. DD was considered negative (DD-) if <500 ng/mL. Final case adjudication was based on conclusive diagnostic imaging, autopsy, surgery, or 14-day follow-up. Outcomes were the failure rate and efficiency of a diagnostic strategy for ruling out AAS in patients with ADD-RS=0/DD- or ADD-RS ≤1/DD-., Results: A total of 1850 patients were analyzed. Of these, 438 patients (24%) had ADD-RS=0, 1071 patients (58%) had ADD-RS=1, and 341 patients (18%) had ADD-RS >1. Two hundred forty-one patients (13%) had AAS: 125 had type A aortic dissection, 53 had type B aortic dissection, 35 had intramural aortic hematoma, 18 had aortic rupture, and 10 had penetrating aortic ulcer. A positive DD test result had an overall sensitivity of 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.6-98.6) and a specificity of 64% (95% CI, 61.6-66.4) for the diagnosis of AAS; 8 patients with AAS had DD-. In 294 patients with ADD-RS=0/DD-, 1 case of AAS was observed. This yielded a failure rate of 0.3% (95% CI, 0.1-1.9) and an efficiency of 15.9% (95% CI, 14.3-17.6) for the ADD-RS=0/DD- strategy. In 924 patients with ADD-RS ≤1/DD-, 3 cases of AAS were observed. This yielded a failure rate of 0.3% (95% CI, 0.1-1) and an efficiency of 49.9% (95% CI, 47.7-52.2) for the ADD-RS ≤1/DD- strategy., Conclusions: Integration of ADD-RS (either ADD-RS=0 or ADD-RS ≤1) with DD may be considered to standardize diagnostic rule out of AAS., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02086136., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Acute aortic dissection (AD) represents a diagnostic conundrum. Validated algorithms are particularly needed to identify patients where AD could be ruled out without aortic imaging. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of a strategy combining the aortic dissection detection (ADD) risk score with D-dimer, a sensitive biomarker of AD., Methods: Patients from two clinical centers with suspected AD were prospectively enrolled in a registry, from January 2008 to March 2013. The ADD risk score was calculated by retrospective blinded chart review. For D-dimer, a cutoff of 500 ng/ml was applied., Results: AD was diagnosed in 233 of 1035 (22.5%) patients. The ADD risk score was 0 in 322 (31.1%), 1 in 508 (49.1%) and >1 in 205 (19.8%) patients. The sensitivity and the failure rate of D-dimer were 100% and 0% in patients with ADD score 0, versus 97.5% (95% CI 91.4-99.6%) and 4.2% (95% CI 0.7-12.5%) in patients with ADD risk score >1. In patients with ADD risk score ≤ 1, the sensitivity and the failure rate of D-dimer were 98.7% (95% CI 95.3-99.8%) and 0.8% (95% CI 0.1-2.6%). The diagnostic efficiency of D-dimer in patients with ADD risk score 0 and ≤ 1 was 8.9% (95% CI 7.2-10.7%) and 23.6% (95% CI 21.1-26.2%) respectively., Conclusions: In a large cohort of patients with suspected AD, the presence of ADD risk score 0 or ≤ 1 combined with a negative D-dimer accurately and efficiently ruled out AD., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)