The Journal of emergency medicine · 2024
A 12-year Retrospective Cohort Study of Point-of-care Ultrasound and Aortic Dissection Risk Score in Type A Aortic Dissection.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Aston Danielle, Burgess Thomas, Badach Sarah, Paladugu Komal, Thompson Brian, Schoenfeld Elizabeth, Budhram Gavin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Aortic dissection (AD) is a vascular emergency with time-dependent mortality. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) and AD risk score (ADRS) have been proposed as diagnostic tools to risk stratify patients and reduce time to diagnosis.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We evaluate POCUS findings and ADRS in a retrospective cohort of patients with known type A AD. The objective of this study is to describe the prevalence of POCUS findings and ADRS in this population.
METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with acute type A AD as confirmed on computed tomography scan over a 12-year period from 2008 to 2020, with a subgroup analysis of patients who received POCUS in the emergency department. ADRS was calculated and POCUS findings were reviewed. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the distribution of POCUS findings.
RESULTS: Ninety-one patients met inclusion criteria. POCUS was performed in 41 but only 35 had images of adequate quality for inclusion. Of the POCUS images available, 30/35 (86%) patients had a POCUS finding consistent with dissection and 5/35 (14%) had no findings on POCUS. Twelve percent (11/91) of patients had ADRS = 0. Two patients with ADRS = 0 received POCUS, and one patient had no findings on POCUS.
CONCLUSION: Although POCUS provides rapid information in the diagnosis of type A AD, 14% of patients with images available for review had no findings on POCUS. Of the whole cohort, 12% had an ADRS = 0. Further studies are needed to identify an optimal diagnostic pathway for this catastrophic disease.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We evaluate POCUS findings and ADRS in a retrospective cohort of patients with known type A AD. The objective of this study is to describe the prevalence of POCUS findings and ADRS in this population.
METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with acute type A AD as confirmed on computed tomography scan over a 12-year period from 2008 to 2020, with a subgroup analysis of patients who received POCUS in the emergency department. ADRS was calculated and POCUS findings were reviewed. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the distribution of POCUS findings.
RESULTS: Ninety-one patients met inclusion criteria. POCUS was performed in 41 but only 35 had images of adequate quality for inclusion. Of the POCUS images available, 30/35 (86%) patients had a POCUS finding consistent with dissection and 5/35 (14%) had no findings on POCUS. Twelve percent (11/91) of patients had ADRS = 0. Two patients with ADRS = 0 received POCUS, and one patient had no findings on POCUS.
CONCLUSION: Although POCUS provides rapid information in the diagnosis of type A AD, 14% of patients with images available for review had no findings on POCUS. Of the whole cohort, 12% had an ADRS = 0. Further studies are needed to identify an optimal diagnostic pathway for this catastrophic disease.