The inadvertent administration of anticoagulants to ED patients ultimately diagnosed with thoracic aortic dissection

From ER to OR-Type A aortic dissection delay dilemma

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF STUDY

Aortic dissection (AD) remains a life-threatening and time-critical condition. The classical presentation involves sudden onset, sharp "tearing" chest pain radiating to the back. However, it can present with a myriad of symptoms, leading to a high occurrence of misdiagnosis and delay in treatment.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A review of the available literature published on AD and diagnostic delays. A systematic review of the literature performed via PubMed and Google scholar using key search terms such as "type A," "aortic dissection," "delay," "misdiagnosis," and synonyms. The Boolean operator used to narrow results specifically to diagnostic elements of AD. A current lack of data collection has impeded the systematic analysis and review of this condition making it difficult to assess reasons for delay. A review of the literature showed a large variation in the presentation of those that have acute AD. Often the presentation mimics other more common conditions such as acute coronary syndrome. Lack of awareness amongst clinicians means that it is often not considered as a differential. Furthermore, the lack of a discriminator for patients being triaged leads to diagnostic delay; this is exacerbated by limited accessibility to diagnostic tests such as CT.

CONCLUSION

Based on the current literature, collaborative data collection, regular audit, national guidance, and communication between Royal Colleges will improve awareness, reduce diagnostic delays, and shine greater light on the issue.

How to prevent inadvertent emergency anticoagulation in acute type A aortic dissection: when in doubt, don't

Inadvertent emergency anticoagulation in patients with acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) has been sparsely reported. There are case reports bringing this potential critical incident to attention, however, little is known about the number of undetected and unreported cases. We approach this issue based on a case report of inadvertent emergency anticoagulation in ATAAD and attempt to shed light on aspects that may have contributed to the critical incident: The challenge of distinguishing an ATAAD from an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and the potential underestimation of incidents of ATAAD. We also discuss errors and biases in medical decision making, and provide suggestions that may help raise awareness of how ATAAD can be mimicking ACS in clinical practice.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Hospitalized With Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome in Whom the Diagnosis is not Confirmed

Patients admitted with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in whom the diagnosis is not confirmed are poorly characterized. In a contemporary registry of consecutive patients hospitalized with suspected ACS as the primary diagnosis, we assessed characteristics on admission and in-hospital and 6-month mortality of patients discharged with other diagnoses and compared this subgroup with true ACS patients. Of 2557 patients included, 9.0% were discharged with a non-ACS diagnosis such as nonspecific chest pain, myopericarditis, stress cardiomyopathy, hemodynamic disturbances, heart failure, myocardial, pulmonary or valvular disease, or others. Compared with true ACS patients, those with other diagnoses were younger, more often female, and had less cardiovascular risk factors. Both groups had comparable rates of nonchest pain presentation and similar hemodynamic characteristics on admission. Non-ACS patients presented less often with Q waves or with ST-segment or T-wave changes and had a lower Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score than true ACS patients. In-hospital (4.3 vs 4.0%, respectively, p = 0.834) and 6-month (5.4 vs 8.0%, respectively, p = 0.163) mortality rates were comparable in both groups. However, if patients in the non-ACS group were divided into subgroups with nonspecific chest pain (6.2% of total) or other diagnoses (2.8% of total), major differences in in-hospital (0.0 vs 13.9%, respectively, p < 0.001) and 6-month (0.7 vs 15.7%, respectively, p < 0.001) mortality rates would become apparent and remain after multivariable adjustment. In conclusion, in a non-negligible proportion of patients hospitalized with suspected ACS, this diagnosis is not confirmed. Prognosis of these patients follows a bimodal pattern, being excellent in those with nonspecific chest pain but worse than that of true ACS patients in the rest. Efforts are necessary to ensure prompt identification and early risk stratification of these patients allowing appropriate management decisions.

Safety and Necessity of Antiplatelet Therapy on Patients Underwent Endovascular Aortic Repair with Both Stanford Type B Aortic Dissection and Coronary Heart Disease

Background:

Acute aortic dissection is known as the most dangerous aortic disease, with management and prognosis determined as the disruption of the medial layer provoked by intramural bleeding. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and necessity of antiplatelet therapy on patients with Stanford Type B aortic dissection (TBAD) who underwent endovascular aortic repair (EVAR).

Methods:

The present study retrospectively analyzed 388 patients with TBAD who underwent EVAR and coronary angiography. The primary outcomes were hemorrhage, death, endoleak, recurrent dissection, myocardial infarction, and cerebral infarction in patients with and without aspirin antiplatelet therapy at 1 month and 12 months.

Results:

Of those 388 patients, 139 (35.8%) patients were treated with aspirin and 249 (64.2%) patients were not treated with aspirin. Patients in the aspirin group were elderly (57.0 ± 10.3 years vs. 52.5 ± 11.9 years, respectively, χ² = 3.812, P < 0.001) and had more hypertension (92.1% vs. 83.9%, respectively, χ² = 5.191, P = 0.023) and diabetes (7.2% vs. 2.8%, respectively, χ² = 4.090, P = 0.043) than in the no-aspirin group. Twelve patients (aspirin group vs. no-aspirin group; 3.6% vs. 2.8%, respectively, χ² = 0.184, P = 0.668) died at 1-month follow-up, while the number was 18 (4.6% vs. 5.0%, respectively, χ² = 0.027, P = 0.870) at 12-month follow-up. Hemorrhage occurred in 1 patient (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] Type 2) of the aspirin group, and 3 patients (1 BARC Type 2 and 2 BARC Type 5) in the no-aspirin group at 1-month follow-up (χ² = 0.005, P = 0.944). New hemorrhage occurred in five patients in the no-aspirin group at 12-month follow-up. Three patients in the aspirin group while five patients in the no-aspirin group had recurrent dissection for endoleak at 1-month follow-up (2.3% vs. 2.2%, respectively, χ² = 0.074, P = 0.816). Four patients had new dissection in the no-aspirin group at 12-month follow-up (2.3% vs. 3.8%, respectively, χ² = 0.194, P = 0.660). Each group had one patient with myocardial infarction at 1-month follow-up (0.8% vs. 0.4%, respectively, χ² = 0.102, P = 0.749) and one more patient in the no-aspirin group at 12-month follow-up. No one had cerebral infarction in both groups during the 12-month follow-up. In the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) subgroup, 44 (31.7%) patients had taken dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT, aspirin + clopidogrel) and the other 95 (68.3%) patients had taken only aspirin. There was no significant difference in hemorrhage (0% vs. 1.1%, respectively, χ² = 0.144, P = 0.704), death (4.8% vs. 4.5%, respectively, χ² = 0.154, P = 0.695), myocardial infarction (2.4% vs. 0%, respectively, χ² = 0.144, P = 0.704), endoleak, and recurrent dissection (0% vs. 3.4%, respectively, χ² = 0.344, P = 0.558) between the two groups at 12-month follow-up.

Conclusions:

The present study indicated that long-term oral low-dose aspirin was safe for patients with both TBAD and coronary heart disease who underwent EVAR. For the patients who underwent both EVAR and PCI, DAPT also showed no increase in hemorrhage, endoleak, recurrent dissection, death, and myocardial infarction.

The importance, measurement and practical implications of worker's expectations for return to work

PURPOSE

Workers' own expectations for return to work consistently predict work status. To advance the understanding of the relationship between RTW expectations and outcomes, we reviewed existing measures to determine those which we felt were the most likely to capture the construct.

METHOD

A comprehensive search of the work-disability rehabilitation literature was undertaken. The review of the measures was conducted in three steps: first, a review of terminology; second, an examination of whether a time reference was included; third, an evaluation of ease of comprehension, and applicability across contexts.

RESULTS

A total of 42 different measures were identified. One of the most striking findings was the inconsistency in terminology. Measures were also limited by not including a time reference. Problems were also identified with regards to ease of understanding, utility of response options, and applicability in a wide variety of research and applied settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Most previously used measures contain elements that potentially limit utility. However, it would seem that further development can overcome these, resulting in a tool that provides risk prediction information, and an opportunity to start a conversation to help identify problems that might negatively impact a worker's movement through the RTW process and the outcomes achieved. Implications for Rehabilitation Return to work is an integral part of workplace injury management. The capture of RTW expectations affords a way to identify the potential for less than optimal RTW processes and outcomes. A mismatch between an injured worker's expectations and what other stakeholders might expect suggests that efforts could be made to determine what is causing the injured worker's concerns. Once underling issues are identified, work can be put into resolving these so that the worker's return to the workplace is not impeded.

A Description of the Prehospital Phase of Aortic Dissection in Terms of Early Suspicion and Treatment

Purpose

Aortic dissection is difficult to detect in the early phase due to a variety of symptoms. This report describes the prehospital setting of aortic dissection in terms of symptoms, treatment, and suspicion by the Emergency Medical Service (EMS) staff.

Basic Procedures

All patients in the Municipality of Gothenburg, Sweden, who, in 2010 and 2011, had a hospital discharge diagnosis of aortic dissection (international classification of disease (ICD) I 71,0) were included. The exclusion criteria were: age < 18 years of age and having a planned operation. This was a retrospective, descriptive study based on patient records. In the statistical analyses, Fisher's exact test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used for analyses of dichotomous and continuous/ordered variables.

Main findings

Of 92 patients, 78% were transported to the hospital by the EMS. The most common symptom was pain (94%). Pain was intensive or very intensive in 89% of patients, with no significant difference in relation to the use of the EMS. Only 47% of those using the EMS were given pain relief with narcotic analgesics. Only 12% were free from pain on admission to the hospital. A suspicion of aortic dissection was reported by the EMS staff in only 17% of cases. The most common preliminary diagnosis at the dispatch center (31%) and by EMS clinicians (52%) was chest pain or angina pectoris. In all, 79% of patients were discharged alive from the hospital (75% of those that used the EMS and 95% of those that did not).

Conclusion

Among patients who were hospitalized due to aortic dissection in Gothenburg, 78% used the EMS. Despite severe pain in the majority of patients, fewer than half received narcotic analgesics, and only 12% were free from pain on admission to the hospital. In fewer than one-in-five patients was a suspicion of aortic dissection reported by the EMS staff.

AxelssonC, KarlssonT, PandeK, WigertzK, ÖrtenwallP, NordanstigJ, HerlitzJ. A description of the prehospital phase of aortic dissection in terms of early suspicion and treatment. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(2):1-8.

Increasing prevalence of hypertension among patients with thoracic aorta dissection: trends over eight decades--a structured meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This structured metaanalysis focused on determining the relationship between hypertension (HTN) and thoracic aortic dissection (TAD).

METHODS

Electronic searches were conducted using the MedLine database, for the period 1946 through May 2013, and manual searches from reference lists. Demographic data, patient diagnosis, and HTN prevalence were extracted from each study. Data were analyzed using weighted averages, metaanalysis, analysis of variance, trend analysis, and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 8,086 cases of TAD from 75 studies over eight decades were assessed. Overall prevalence of HTN in TAD was 66.7% ± 17.5%. An increase of approximately 5.6% in HTN prevalence in TAD cases occurred in every decade. Prevalence of HTN in type A dissections steadily increased, with an overall prevalence of 64.8% ± 21.3%, while in type B dissections, prevalence abruptly increased from 1950 to 1970 and remained constant thereafter, with an overall prevalence of 78.7% ± 8.6%. Trend analysis demonstrated significant (P < 0.001) and linear increasing trends for the prevalence of HTN and age at presentation. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that a history of HTN was significantly (P < 0.001) associated with increasing trends of over time, which was independent of the relationship between age and TAD.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of TAD patients with HTN has been increasing over eight decades. Age at presentation of TAD has also been incrementally increasing, but the increase in HTN was independent of age in multivariate analysis. The trend for increasing HTN prevalence was more evident in type A TAD. These data highlight a need to focus on HTN management in patients with thoracic aortic aneurysm.

Thrombolytic-related complication in a case of misdiagnosed myocardial infarction

The importance of early thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction has been highlighted in several large trials. The clinical decision is often taken by physicians who need to take a rapid action with the risk of misdiagnosing non-coronary events that mimic myocardial infarction. Here we describe a case of acute pericarditis in a 37-year-old man whom received thrombolysis and developed a sudden hemorrhagic pericardial effusion that evolved rapidly into a cardiac tamponade. These errors leading to lethal thrombolysis complications have been surprisingly rare; but a correct diagnosis of aortic dissection or hemorrhagic pericarditis needs to be stressed because even after obtaining the correct diagnosis, the prolonged disturbance of hemostasis prevents a rapid therapy being instigated.

Percutaneous transluminal intervention and antiplatelet therapy following endovascular graft exclusion for Stanford B thoracic aortic dissection

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and feasibility of percutaneous coronary intervention and antiplatelet therapy in patients who have undergone endovascular graft exclusion.

METHODS

From January 2005 to July 2007, percutaneous transluminal intervention (PCI) was performed in 13 patients who had undergone endovascular graft exclusion for the treatment of either acute or chronic Stanford B aortic dissection. Anticoagulant and antiplatelet treatments were administered according to the standard protocol. Patients were followed up for a mean period of 11 months. Clinical characteristics, false lumen thrombosis and angiographic data were collected.

RESULTS

PCI was technically successful in all 13 patients and no severe complications, including death, paraplegia or renal failure occurred during hospitalization. Complete false lumen thrombosis was observed in all patients within 6 months. There were no major complications such as death, dissection rupture, or aneurysm development during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggested that PCI and standard antiplatelet therapy are feasible and safe in patients who have undergone endovascular stent graft exclusion for Stanford B aortic dissection.

A survival case of painless chronic type A aortic dissection with a history of stroke and anticoagulant use

We report the case of a patient with completely painless chronic aortic dissection, who presented to another hospital with a left hemiparesia 3 months ago and received anticoagulation therapy with a diagnosis of ischemic stroke. Most of her symptoms had resolved when she presented to our outpatient clinic except for numbness of her left hand and dysphasia. Physical examination found a diastolic murmur at the left sternal border and a bruit over the right carotid artery. Transthoracic echocardiography and carotid sonography demonstrated aortic dissection with extension into the internal right carotid artery and severe aortic regurgitation. Surgery was performed successfully and the patient was discharged. This case emphasizes that the diagnosis of a completely painless aortic dissection with only neurologic symptoms at presentation can be extremely difficult and should always be considered as a cause of ischemic stroke to avoid catastrophic antithrombolytic or anticoagulation therapy.

The triple work-up for emergency department patients with acute chest pain: how often does it occur?

OBJECTIVES

To measure the degree of overlap and diagnostic yield for evaluations of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), pulmonary embolism (PE), and aortic dissection (AD) among Emergency Department (ED) patients.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional descriptive study of consecutive adult patients seen in the ED of a 78,000-annual-visit urban academic medical center. Patients who had received at least one of eight of the tests used in our ED to diagnose these three diseases were identified through three methods, and a final study population list was created. Overlap of evaluations and diagnostic yields were calculated by simple descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Over a 2-week period, 626 patient encounters among 622 unique patients were identified. Among these 626 visits, 139 (22%) included diagnostic tests for more than one of the three diagnoses of interest. The majority of these multiple tests were for ACS plus PE (n = 121, 87% of all multiple tests), whereas a minority of patients received tests for ACS plus AD (n = 14, 10% of all multiple tests) or for the "triple work-up" of ACS plus PE plus AD (n = 4, 2.9% of all multiple tests).

CONCLUSION

Although the "triple work-up" evaluation for ACS, PE, and AD is relatively uncommon, a significant number of ED patients who are evaluated for at least one of these three major chest pain syndromes receive simultaneous testing for one of the others.

Painless aortic dissection masquerading as brainstem stroke with catastrophic anticoagulant use

Painless aortic dissection with only focal neurological symptoms and signs can be a great challenge to the emergency physician. Inadvertently and erroneous treatment of stroke may threaten patient's life. We present a patient with painless aortic dissection (DeBakey I), which was initially misdiagnosed as brainstem stroke with catastrophic anticoagulant use. Finally, the patient died of multiorgan failure after surgical intervention.

Frequency, determinants, and clinical relevance of acute coronary syndrome-like electrocardiographic findings in patients with acute aortic syndrome

We investigated frequency/characteristics of acute coronary syndrome-like (ACS-like) electrocardiographic (ECG) profiles among patients with a final diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome (AAS), and explored pathophysiologic determinants and prognostic relevance within each Stanford subtype. We blindly reviewed presentation electrocardiograms of 233 consecutive patients with final diagnosis of AAS (164 Stanford type A) at a regional treatment center. Prevalence of ACS-like ECG findings was 27% (type A, 26%, type B, 29%); most were non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction-like. Patients with ACS-like ECG findings more often had coronary ostia involvement (p=0.002), pleural effusion (p=0.02), significant aortic regurgitation (p=0.01), and troponin positivity (p=0.001). ACS-like ECG profile in type A disease was independently associated with coronary ostia involvement (odds ratio [OR] 5.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.75 to 15.88). ACS-like ECG profile predicted in-hospital mortality (OR 2.90, 95% CI 1.24 to 6.12), as did age (each incremental 10-year: OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.22), and syncope at presentation (OR 2.90, 95% CI 1.16 to 7.24). In conclusion, about 25% of our AAS patients (in either Stanford subtype) presented ACS-like ECG patterns-often with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction characteristics-which could cause misdiagnosis. ACS-like ECG profile was associated with more complicated disease, and in type A disease was a strong independent predictor of in-hospital mortality.

Acute aortic dissection

Acute aortic dissection is an uncommon but lethal cause of acute chest, back, and abdominal pain. Establishing a timely diagnosis is paramount, as mortality from acute aortic dissection rises by the hour. Physical findings are protean and may include acute aortic valve insufficiency, peripheral pulse deficits, a variety of neurologic deficits, or end-organ ischemia. The keys to establishing a timely diagnosis are maintaining a high index of suspicion and quickly obtaining a diagnostic study. CT angiography, magnetic resonance imaging, transesophageal echocardiography, and, to a lesser extent, aortography are all highly accurate imaging modalities. The choice of study should be driven by the clinical stability of the patient, the information required and the resources available at presentation. Proximal dissections are surgical emergencies, but distal dissections are generally treated medically. Endovascular stents are gaining favor for use in the repair of both acute and chronic distal dissections. Long-term outcome data for endovascular stenting are still limited, and it remains unclear when stenting should be favored over surgery or medical therapy.