The American journal of emergency medicine · 2021
Misdiagnosis of aortic dissection: A systematic review of the literature.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lovatt Saul, Wong Chun Wai, Schwarz Konstantin, Borovac Josip A, Lo Ted, Gunning Mark, Phan Thanh, Patwala Ashish, Barker Diane, Mallen Christian D, Kwok Chun Shing
Аннотация
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.
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.