Systematic Review of Aortic Dissection Detection Risk Score Plus D-dimer for Diagnostic Rule-out Of Suspected Acute Aortic Syndromes

Diagnostic accuracy of the aortic dissection detection risk score alone or with D-dimer for acute aortic syndromes: Systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the aortic dissection detection risk score (ADD-RS) used alone or in combination with D-dimer for detecting acute aortic syndrome (AAS) in patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of AAS.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to February 2024. Additionally, the reference lists of included studies and other systematic reviews were thoroughly searched. All diagnostic accuracy studies that assessed the use of ADD-RS alone or with D-Dimer for diagnosing AAS compared with a reference standard test (e.g. computer tomographic angiography (CTA), ECG-gated CTA, echocardiography, magnetic resonance angiography, operation, or autopsy) were included. Two reviewers independently selected and extracted data. Risk of bias was appraised using QUADAS-2 tool. Data were synthesised using hierarchical meta-analysis models.

RESULTS

We selected 13 studies from the 2017 citations identified, including six studies evaluating combinations of ADD-RS alongside D-dimer>500ng/L. Summary sensitivities and specificities (95% credible interval) were: ADD-RS>0 94.6% (90%, 97.5%) and 34.7% (20.7%, 51.2%), ADD-RS>1 43.4% (31.2%, 57.1%) and 89.3% (80.4%, 94.8%); ADD RS>0 or D-Dimer>500ng/L 99.8% (98.7%, 100%) and 21.8% (12.1%, 32.6%); ADD RS>1 or D-Dimer>500ng/L 98.3% (94.9%, 99.5%) and 51.4% (38.7%, 64.1%); ADD RS>1 or ADD RS = 1 with D-dimer>500ng/L 93.1% (87.1%, 96.3%) and 67.1% (54.4%, 77.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Combinations of ADD-RS and D-dimer can be used to select patients with suspected AAS for imaging with a range of trade-offs between sensitivity (93.1% to 99.8%) and specificity (21.8% to 67.1%).

Diagnostic Accuracy of D-Dimer for Acute Aortic Syndromes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Acute aortic syndrome is a life-threatening emergency condition. Previous systematic reviews of D-dimer diagnostic accuracy for acute aortic syndrome have been contradictory and based on limited data, but recently published studies offer potential for a more definitive overview. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic accuracy of D-dimer for diagnosing acute aortic syndrome.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to February 2024. Additionally, the reference lists of included studies and other systematic reviews were thoroughly searched. All diagnostic cohort studies (prospective or retrospective) that assessed the use of D-dimer for diagnosing acute aortic syndrome compared with a reference standard test (eg, computed tomographic angiography (CTA), ECG-gated CTA, echocardiography, magnetic resonance angiography, operation, or autopsy) were included. Two independent reviewers completed study selection, data extractions and quality assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Data were synthesized using a bivariate meta-analysis model.

RESULTS

Of 2017 potentially relevant citations, 25 cohort studies met the inclusion criteria, and 18 reporting the 500 ng/mL threshold were included in the primary meta-analysis. Risk of bias domains were mostly unclear due to limited study reporting. The summary sensitivity was 96.5% (95% credible interval [CrI] 94.8% to 98%) and summary specificity was 56.2% (95% CrI, 48.3% to 63.9%). Study specificity varied markedly from 33% to 86%, indicating substantial heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis including the 7 studies reporting other thresholds showed summary sensitivity of 95.7% (95% CrI, 93.2% to 97.5%) and summary specificity of 57.5% (95% CrI, 50.1% to 64.6%).

CONCLUSION

D-dimer concentration has high sensitivity (96.5%) and moderate specificity (56.2%) for acute aortic syndrome, with some uncertainty around estimates due to risk of bias and heterogeneity. Previous meta-analysis reporting higher specificity may be explained by inclusion of case-control studies that may overestimate accuracy.

Diagnosis of acute aortic syndromes with ultrasound and d-dimer: the PROFUNDUS study

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.

Syncope in the Emergency Department: A Practical Approach

Syncope is a common condition encountered in the emergency department (ED), accounting for about 0.6-3% of all ED visits. Despite its high frequency, a widely accepted management strategy for patients with syncope in the ED is still missing. Since syncope can be the presenting condition of many diseases, both severe and benign, most research efforts have focused on strategies to obtain a definitive etiologic diagnosis. Nevertheless, in everyday clinical practice, a definitive diagnosis is rarely reached after the first evaluation. It is thus troublesome to aid clinicians' reasoning by simply focusing on differential diagnoses. With the current review, we would like to propose a management strategy that guides clinicians both in the identification of conditions that warrant immediate treatment and in the management of patients for whom a diagnosis is not immediately reached, differentiating those that can be safely discharged from those that should be admitted to the hospital or monitored before a final decision. We propose the mnemonic acronym RED-SOS: Recognize syncope; Exclude life-threatening conditions; Diagnose; Stratify the risk of adverse events; Observe; decide on the Setting of care. Based on this acronym, in the different sections of the review, we discuss all the elements that clinicians should consider when assessing patients with syncope.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Transthoracic Echocardiography for Acute Type A Aortic Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is currently recognized as the potential first-line imaging test for patients with suspected acute type A aortic syndrome (AAAS). Direct TTE sign for detecting AAAS is positive if there is an intimal flap separating two aortic lumens or aortic wall thickening seen in the ascending aorta. Indirect TTE sign indicates high-risk features of AAAS, such as aortic root dilatation, pericardial effusion, and aortic regurgitation. Our aim is to summarize the existing clinical evidence regarding the diagnostic accuracy of TTE and to evaluate its potential role in the management of patients with suspected AAAS.

METHODS

We included prospective or retrospective diagnostic cohort studies, written in any language, that specifically focused on using TTE to diagnose AAAS from databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio [1], and hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic (HSROC) curve were calculated for TTE in diagnosing AAAS. We applied Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy (QUADAS-2) tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) quality assessment criteria.

RESULTS

Ten studies (2886 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of direct TTE signs were 58% (95% CI, 38-76%) and 94% (95% CI, 89-97%). For any TTE signs, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 91% (95% CI, 85-94%) and 74% (95% CI, 61-84%). The diagnostic accuracy of direct TTE signs was significantly higher than that of any TTE signs, as measured by the area under the HSROC curve [0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96) vs. 0.87 (95% CI, 0.84-0.90)] in four studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that TTE could serve as the initial imaging test for patients with suspected AAAS. Given its high specificity, the presence of direct TTE signs may indicate AAAS, whereas the absence of any TTE signs, combined with low clinical suspicion, could suggest a lower likelihood of AAAS.

Diagnosis and management of acute aortic dissection in the emergency department

Acute aortic dissection is often misdiagnosed as a result of its atypical presentations. It affects 4000 patients a year in the UK of all ages, not just older patients, with increasing numbers of cases expected in the future because of the ageing population. Dissection of the aortic wall leads to sudden, severe pain, and commonly end-organ symptoms which must be recognised. Acute aortic dissection can be challenging to diagnose in the emergency department because of the multitude of possible presentations and the need for selective testing with Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA). Clinicians often miss acute aortic dissection because it is not considered in the differential diagnosis, and the challenge lies in identifying acute aortic dissection in a sea of complaints of chest, back and abdominal pain. There are several ways to improve diagnosis, including awareness campaigns, better education about patients in which to consider acute aortic dissection, and improved detection strategies including which patients should receive CTA. Clinical decision tools and biomarkers could help, but further research is required and is a research focus in emergency medicine. Once diagnosed, blood pressure control, analgesia and urgent surgery or transfer to enable this to occur with minimal delay is required.

Diagnosis of Acute Aortic Syndrome in the Emergency Department (DAShED) study: an observational cohort study of people attending the emergency department with symptoms consistent with acute aortic syndrome

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is commonly delayed or missed in the ED. We describe characteristics of ED attendances with symptoms potentially associated with AAS, diagnostic performance of clinical decision tools (CDTs) and physicians and yield of CT aorta angiogram (CTA).

METHODS

This was a multicentre observational cohort study of adults attending 27 UK EDs between 26 September 2022 and 30 November 2022, with potential AAS symptoms: chest, back or abdominal pain, syncope or symptoms related to malperfusion. Patients were preferably identified prospectively, but retrospective recruitment was also permitted. Anonymised, routinely collected patient data including components of CDTs, was abstracted. Clinicians treating prospectively identified patients were asked to record their perceived likelihood of AAS, prior to any confirmatory testing. Reference standard was radiological or operative confirmation of AAS. 30-day electronic patient record follow-up evaluated whether a subsequent diagnosis of AAS had been made and mortality.

RESULTS

5548 patients presented, with a median age of 55 years (IQR 37-72; n=5539). 14 (0.3%; n=5353) had confirmed AAS. 10/1046 (1.0%) patients in whom the ED clinician thought AAS was possible had AAS. 5/147 (3.4%) patients in whom AAS was considered the most likely diagnosis had AAS. 2/3319 (0.06%) patients in whom AAS was considered not possible did have AAS. 540 (10%; n=5446) patients underwent CT, of which 407 were CTA (7%). 30-day follow-up did not reveal any missed AAS diagnoses. AUROC (area under the receiver operating characteristic) curve for ED clinician AAS likelihood rating was 0.958 (95% CI 0.933 to 0.983, n=4006) and for individual CDTs were: Aortic Dissection Detection Risk Score (ADD-RS) 0.674 (95% CI 0.508 to 0.839, n=4989), AORTAs 0.689 (95% CI 0.527 to 0.852, n=5132), Canadian 0.818 (95% CI 0.686 to 0.951, n=5180) and Sheffield 0.628 (95% CI 0.467 to 0.788, n=5092).

CONCLUSION

Only 0.3% of patients presenting with potential AAS symptoms had AAS but 7% underwent CTA. CDTs incorporating clinician gestalt appear to be most promising, but further prospective work is needed, including evaluation of the role of D-dimer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05582967; NCT05582967.

Risk of bias assessments in individual participant data meta-analyses of test accuracy and prediction models: a review shows improvements are needed

OBJECTIVES

Risk of bias assessments are important in meta-analyses of both aggregate and individual participant data (IPD). There is limited evidence on whether and how risk of bias of included studies or datasets in IPD meta-analyses (IPDMAs) is assessed. We review how risk of bias is currently assessed, reported, and incorporated in IPDMAs of test accuracy and clinical prediction model studies and provide recommendations for improvement.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched PubMed (January 2018-May 2020) to identify IPDMAs of test accuracy and prediction models, then elicited whether each IPDMA assessed risk of bias of included studies and, if so, how assessments were reported and subsequently incorporated into the IPDMAs.

RESULTS

Forty-nine IPDMAs were included. Nineteen of 27 (70%) test accuracy IPDMAs assessed risk of bias, compared to 5 of 22 (23%) prediction model IPDMAs. Seventeen of 19 (89%) test accuracy IPDMAs used Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), but no tool was used consistently among prediction model IPDMAs. Of IPDMAs assessing risk of bias, 7 (37%) test accuracy IPDMAs and 1 (20%) prediction model IPDMA provided details on the information sources (e.g., the original manuscript, IPD, primary investigators) used to inform judgments, and 4 (21%) test accuracy IPDMAs and 1 (20%) prediction model IPDMA provided information or whether assessments were done before or after obtaining the IPD of the included studies or datasets. Of all included IPDMAs, only seven test accuracy IPDMAs (26%) and one prediction model IPDMA (5%) incorporated risk of bias assessments into their meta-analyses. For future IPDMA projects, we provide guidance on how to adapt tools such as Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (for prediction models) and QUADAS-2 (for test accuracy) to assess risk of bias of included primary studies and their IPD.

CONCLUSION

Risk of bias assessments and their reporting need to be improved in IPDMAs of test accuracy and, especially, prediction model studies. Using recommended tools, both before and after IPD are obtained, will address this.

A Novel Tool for Distinguishing Type A Acute Aortic Syndrome from Heart Failure and Acute Coronary Syndrome

Type A acute aortic syndrome (urgent AAS, UAAS) has a low incidence and high mortality rate; however, it is often missed or diagnosed late. Our aim was to create a new tool for distinguishing UAAS by using multiple modalities to select patients for CT aortography. This study included 75 patients with UAAS, 77 with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and 81 with heart failure (HF) who received urgent treatment after propensity matching. Specific symptoms, past medical history, mediastinal width, region of interest (ROI) ratio in the lung base/apex, D-dimers, and troponin I were investigated to differentiate UAAS from ACS and HF. The most significant variables were selected to create a new scoring system. The UAAS score exhibited a performance AUC of 0.982. A simple UAAS score >1, excluding ROI ratios in lung base/apex, showed an AUC of 0.977, a sensitivity of 96%, and specificity of 92.41%. The results were validated using an external data set of 292 patients (simple UAAS score > 1: AUC of 0.966, sensitivity 93.33%, and specificity 95.36%). The simple UAAS score may be a valuable tool for suspecting UAAS and may reduce the likelihood of misdiagnosis or performing unnecessary CT aortography.

2022 ACC/AHA guideline for the diagnosis and management of aortic disease: A report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Predicting acute aortic syndrome using aortic dissection detection risk score, D-dimer, and X-ray

Objective

Acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is a fatal disease with high mortality. There were previous studies using aortic dissection detection risk score (ADD-RS) and D-dimer (DD) to screen AAS. There were screening failures in previous studies, suggesting the need for a more accurate tool. This study investigated the effect of combining ADD-RS and age adjusted D-dimer (DDage-adj) with abnormal findings on chest radiographs on the diagnosis of AAS in patients admitted to emergency department (ED).

Methods

This single-center retrospective case-control study included 93 patients with AAS and 465 with chest pain (CP), diagnosis other than AAS. We attempted to compare the initial clinical presentation and laboratory examination findings.

Results

Age-adjusted DD (DDage-adj), defined as age x 0.01 mg/L in patients ≥50 years, showed sensitivity of 92.5% and specificity of 76.3% for patients with AAS (p < 0.001). Positive chest radiography findings were significant with AAS group; sensitivity was 89.2% with a specificity of 80.9% (p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used; widened mediastinum, widening of aortic contour and aortic kinking indicates the probability of AAS in patients with CP (p < 0.05).ADD-RS was used to evaluate the risk of AAS. For low risk group, ADD-RS ≤1, combined use of chest radiography and DDage-adj showed meaningful result. Sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 67.1% with failure rate of 0% (p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis were made; widening of the mediastinum (p = 0.035), widening of the aortic contour (p < 0.001) and aortic kinking (p < 0.001) showed significant p-value. Combining DDage-adj and these three chest radiography findings in ADD-RS≤1 patients resulted 0% failure rate with 67.8% specificity (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The combination of ADD-RS, DDage-adj and chest radiography could lower the failure rate of AAS exclusion strategy. This combination strategy satisfies low failure rate (<3%) and yields relatively high specificity of 67.8%.

Review article: Accuracy of emergency physician performed point-of-care ultrasound of the thoracic aorta: A systematic review and narrative synthesis of the literature

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is becoming ubiquitous in emergency medicine. POCUS for abdominal aortic aneurysm is well established in practice. The thoracic aorta can also be assessed by POCUS for dissection and aneurysm and transthoracic echocardiography is endorsed by international guidelines as an initial test for thoracic aortic pathologies. A systematic search of Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Web of Science from January 2000 to August 2022 identified four studies evaluating diagnostic accuracy of emergency physician POCUS for thoracic aortic dissection (TAD) and five studies for thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA). Study designs were heterogeneous including differing diagnostic criteria for aortic pathology. Convenience recruitment was frequent in prospective studies. Sensitivity and specificity ranges for studies of TAD were 41-91% and 94-100%, respectively when an intimal flap was seen. Sensitivity and specificity ranges for studies of thoracic aorta dilation >40 mm were 50-100% and 93-100%, respectively; for >45 mm ranges were 64-65% and 95-99%. Literature review identified that POCUS is specific for TAD and TAA. POCUS reduces the time to diagnosis of thoracic aortic pathology; however, it remains insensitive and cannot be recommended as a stand-alone rule-out test. We suggest that detection of thoracic aorta dilation >40 mm by POCUS at any site increases the suspicion of serious aortic pathology. Studies incorporating algorithmic use of POCUS, Aortic Dissection Detection Risk Score and D-dimer as decision tools are promising and may improve current ED practices. Further research is warranted in this rapidly evolving field.

D-dimer measurement is useful irrespective of time from the onset of acute aortic syndrome symptoms

BACKGROUND

In acute aortic syndrome (AAS) screening, D-dimer is a well-established biomarker whose usefulness has been scarcely studied with respect to its measurement timing. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of D-dimer-based AAS screening focused on the time interval between AAS onset and D-dimer measurement.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients diagnosed with AAS who visited our hospital between 2011 and 2021. For the primary analysis, we divided patients according to the quartiles of the time interval between AAS symptom onset and D-dimer measurement. D-dimer level ≥ 0.5 μg/mL and age-adjusted D-dimer ≥ [age (years) × 0.01] μg/mL (minimum of 0.5 μg/mL) were defined as positive. The primary endpoint was the comparative ability of D-dimer to detect AAS within and between each time quartile. In an exploratory secondary analysis, we reported patient and AAS characteristics in the subgroup of patients who underwent repeat D-dimer measurement within 48 h of the first D-dimer measure.

RESULTS

The 273 AAS patients were divided into four groups based on quartiles of the time interval (Group 1, ≤1 h; Group 2, 1-2 h; Group 3, 2-5 h; and Group 4, >5 h). There were no significant differences in D-dimer levels or in the proportions with positive D-dimer (Group 1: 97%, Group 2: 96%, Group 3: 99%, Group 4: 99%; P = 0.76) or positive age-adjusted D-dimer (Group 1: 96%, Group 2: 90%, Group 3: 96%, Group 4: 97%; P = 0.32) between the groups. Of the 147 patients who had D-dimer re-measured, nine had negative D-dimer levels on either the primary or secondary measurement. Of these nine patients, eight had AAS with a thrombosed false lumen and one with a patent false lumen had a short length of dissection. In all nine patients, D-dimer levels remained low (maximum of 1.4 μg/mL).

CONCLUSION

D-dimer levels were elevated from the early stages of AAS. The clinical utility of D-dimer is not affected by the time interval from AAS onset to D-dimer measurement, but rather is influenced by AAS characteristics.

Pre-Test Probability Assessment and d-Dimer Based Evaluation in Patients with Previous Acute Aortic Syndrome

Background and Objectives. Acute aortic syndromes (AASs) are emergencies burdened by high morbidity and mortality. Guideline-recommended diagnostic workup is based on pre-test probability assessment (PPA) and d-dimer testing. However, the performance of PPA and d-dimer has never been studied in individuals with previous AAS (pAAS), which represent a challenging population. Materials and Methods. We analyzed a registry of patients with pAAS evaluated in two Emergency Departments (EDs) for suspected novel AAS (nAAS). Enrolment criteria were history of pAAS and the presence of truncal pain, syncope or perfusion deficit. All patients underwent advanced imaging. Clinical data were registered prospectively and PPA was performed by applying the aortic dissection detection (ADD) and an aorta simplified (AORTAs) score. Results. A total of 128 patients were enrolled, including 77 patients with previous Stanford type A aortic dissection and 45 patients with previous Stanford type B aortic dissection. The final diagnosis was nAAS in 40 (31%) patients. Clinical variables associated with nAAS were: aortic valve disease, thoracic aortic aneurysm, severe pain, sudden pain, ripping/tearing pain and hypotension/shock. ADD score ≥ 2 had a sensitivity of 65% and a specificity of 83% for nAAS; AORTAs score ≥ 2 had a sensitivity of 48% and a specificity of 88%. d-dimer (cutoff ≥ 500 ng/mL or age-adjusted cutoff) had a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 13%/14.7%, for diagnosis of nAAS. Patients that were candidates for guideline-compliant PPA/d-dimer integrated rule-out were: 5 (4.9%) with ADD ≤ 1/d-dimer and 8 (7.8%) with AORTAs ≤ 1/d-dimer < age-adjusted cutoff. None of them had a nAAS. Conclusions. Patients with pAAS evaluated in the ED for red-flag symptoms showed intermediate-to-high pre-test probability of nAAS. The ADD score had lower sensitivity and specificity than in unselected patients. d-dimer, alone and integrated with PPA, was highly sensitive for nAAS, but very unspecific. PPA/d-dimer integrated strategies are unlikely to significantly reduce the number of patients with pAAS undergoing advanced imaging.

D-dimer for assessment of treatment response, and survival to drug-eluting beads transarterial chemoembolization in hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

D-dimer exhibits a certain prognostic value in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients who underwent hepatectomy and microwave ablation, while its value in estimating the clinical benefit of drug-eluting beads transarterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE) remains unclear. Hence, this study aimed to investigate the correlation of D-dimer with tumor features, response and survival to DEB-TACE in HCC patients.

METHODS

Fifty-one HCC patients treated with DEB-TACE were recruited. Their serum samples at baseline and after DEB-TACE were collected and proposed for D-dimer detection by the immunoturbidimetry method.

RESULTS

Elevated D-dimer levels were related to a higher Child‒Pugh stage (P = 0.013), tumor nodule number (P = 0.031), largest tumor size (P = 0.004), and portal vein invasion (P = 0.050) in HCC patients. Then, patients were classified by the median value of D-dimer, and it was observed that patients with D-dimer >0.7 mg/L achieved a lower complete response rate (12.0% vs. 46.2%, P = 0.007) but a similar objective response rate (84.0% vs. 84.6%, P = 1.000) compared to those with D-dimer ≤0.7 mg/L. The Kaplan‒Meier curve showed that D-dimer >0.7 mg/L (vs. ≤0.7 mg/L) was related to shorter overall survival (OS) (P = 0.013). Further univariate Cox regression analyses showed that D-dimer >0.7 mg/L (vs. ≤0.7 mg/L) was related to unfavorable OS [hazard ratio (HR): 5.524, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.209-25.229, P = 0.027], but it failed to independently estimate OS (HR: 10.303, 95%CI: 0.640-165.831, P = 0.100) in multivariate Cox regression analyses. Moreover, D-dimer was elevated during DEB-TACE therapy (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

D-dimer may be helpful for monitoring prognosis to DEB-TACE therapy in HCC, while further large-scale-study validation is warranted.

The Role of Multimodality Imaging Approach in Acute Aortic Syndromes: Diagnosis, Complications, and Clinical Management

Acute aortic syndromes are life-threatening conditions with high morbidity and mortality. The principal pathological feature is acute wall damage with possible evolution towards aortic rupture. Accurate and timely diagnosis is mandatory to avoid catastrophic consequences. Indeed, misdiagnosis with other conditions mimicking acute aortic syndromes is associated with premature death. In this view, cardiovascular imaging is necessary for the correct diagnosis and management. Echocardiography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and aortography allow for diagnosis, guarantee immediate treatment, and detect associated complications. Multimodality imaging is essential in the diagnostic work-up to confirm or rule out acute aortic syndromes. The aim of this review is to highlight the contemporary evidence on the role of single cardiovascular imaging techniques and multimodality imaging in the diagnosis and management of acute aortic syndromes.

Acute-on-Chronic Pattern of Isolated Upper Back Pain in a Patient With Acute Coronary Syndrome

The aim of this case report is to describe the diagnostic pitfalls of acute coronary syndrome in patients with relatively atypical presentation and how we can prevent diagnostic errors in such a patient, particularly focusing on occupational information. A 66-year-old male, a professional taxi driver, presented with severely deteriorated chronic upper back pain on the left side. Furthermore, the upper back pain was exacerbated by changes in position. An orthopedist examined the patient and arrived at a provisional diagnosis of musculoskeletal pain. However, as the patient was concerned about his cardiopulmonary diseases, he visited another physician. Although musculoskeletal pain was still considered as the most possible diagnosis, the physician advised him additional tests for cardiovascular diseases because he had some risk factors such as smoking, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, and the physician thought that "taxi driving" was a high-risk occupation for cardiovascular diseases. Finally, the patient was diagnosed with acute coronary syndrome, and the pain abated soon after percutaneous coronary intervention. Musculoskeletal pain is very common in professional drivers, and isolated upper back pain worsened by changes in position is a characteristic of musculoskeletal disease. However, since professional drivers also have a higher risk of cardiovascular diseases, physicians should consider the coexistence of two types of conditions. This case underscores that if physicians could utilize occupational information to assess patients' risks, diagnostic accuracy would improve, particularly in patients presenting with atypical symptoms and signs, which are at risk of diagnostic errors.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate. Structure: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Aortic dissection diagnosed with the aortic dissection detection risk score of 2 without D-dimer elevation

Acute aortic dissection can be fatal if overlooked, and the absence of D-dimer elevation can be used to exclude acute aortic dissection. However, we report a case of acute aortic dissection without D-dimer elevation. A man in his 70s presented to the emergency department with lumbar back pain. D-dimer was <1.0 µg/mL; however, acute aortic dissection was strongly suspected because of the sudden onset of lumbar back pain with a shifting location. Because of a difference in systolic blood pressure in both upper extremities, we performed a thorough examination using contrast-enhanced CT, leading to a diagnosis of acute aortic dissection. The patient was immediately referred to cardiovascular surgery and treated conservatively with antihypertensive management. The aortic dissection detection risk score (ADD-RS) classified the patient as high risk. This suggests the importance of using the D-dimer with the ADD-RS rather than solely relying on the D-dimer results to diagnose acute aortic dissection.

Acute aortic syndromes: An internist's guide to the galaxy

Acute aortic syndromes (AASs) are severe conditions defined by dissection, hemorrhage, ulceration or rupture of the thoracic aorta. AASs share etiological and pathophysiological features, including long-term aortic tissue degeneration and mechanisms of acute aortic damage. The clinical signs and symptoms of AASs are unspecific and heterogeneous, requiring large differential diagnosis. When evaluating a patient with AAS-compatible symptoms, physicians need to integrate clinical probability assessment, bedside imaging techniques such as point-of-care ultrasound, and blood test results such as d-dimer. The natural history of AASs is dominated by engagement of ischemic, coagulative and inflammatory pathways at large, causing multiorgan damage. Medical treatment, multiorgan monitoring and outcome prognostication are therefore paramount, with internal medicine playing a key role in non-surgical management of AASs.

Outpatient management of patients after surgical operations for acute aortic dissection of type A

Acute aortic dissection of type A is still one of the most difficult diseases faced by doctors of all specialties. The current review is based on an analysis of current literature data and clinical guidelines. It covers various aspects of outpatient patient management and focuses on conservative therapy. The lack of an adequate diagnostic algorithm often leads to complications and, ultimately, death. The dynamic nature of the disease, the variability of clinical manifestations and the course of the pathological process require special attention. Both short-term and long-term survival of the patient depends on careful observation. Postoperative management of patients with acute aortic dissection of type A is entirely entrusted to the outpatient unit, which, due to the absence of the main aspects of the strategy in modern clinical recommendations, is not always prepared for the curation of this complex cohort of patients. The lack of experience in managing this pathology by outpatient hospital doctors causes significant difficulties in interpreting instrumental diagnostic methods, which leads to further erroneous tactics with the development of long-term complications. Due to the lack of a unified scheme of drug therapy, the question of prescribing drugs in these patients, who often receive a fairly large range of medications for concomitant pathology, remains open. These factors contribute to polyprogmasia or vice versa – insufficient volume of drug therapy, which further leads to the progression of the disease. As a result of insufficient emphasis on the basics of outpatient management of this cohort of patients, a whole complex of problems arises, leading to unsatisfactory treatment results and increased healthcare costs for their subsequent solution. The purpose of the review is to highlight the main problems of this issue from the point of view of evidence-based medicine.

Age-Adjusted D-Dimer in Ruling Out Acute Aortic Syndrome

Background. Recently, D-dimer has been suggested as a biomarker to rule out acute aortic syndrome (AAS). Since it increases with age, this study was conducted to reveal whether an age-adjusted D-dimer can increase diagnostic accuracy in ruling out AAS. Method. A retrospective observational study design was used. Consecutive adult patients who visited an emergency room between January 2015 and September 2020 and who underwent a D-dimer test and computed tomography angiography for suspected AAS were enrolled. We calculated the diagnostic accuracy of both the conventional (0.5 μg/ml) and age-adjusted (age × 0.01 in patients >50 years) D-dimer cut-offs. Result. D-dimer was higher in the AAS group (n = 82) than in the non-AAS group (n = 122) (10.85 (3.61–33.12) vs. 0.40 (0.23–1.07), OR: 1.139 (CI: 1.085 – 1.195), $p<0.001$ ). The D-dimer plasma level had an area under the ROC curve of 0.915 (CI: 0.873–0.956) with AAS. At the age-adjusted cutoff point compared to a 0.5 μg/ml cutoff, the sensitivity of 97.6% and the NLR of 0.04 did not change, but the specificity increased by 5.7% to 65.6%, the PPV increased by 3.6% to 65.6%, and the NPV slightly increased by 0.2% to 97.6%. Conclusion. Compared with a conventional method, the age-adjusted D-dimer cutoff may have higher specificity and PPV while maintaining high sensitivity for ruling out AAS.

Acute Aortic Syndrome Revisited: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

The purpose of this paper is to describe all available evidence on the distinctive features of a group of 4 life-threatening acute aortic pathologies gathered under the name of acute aortic syndrome (AAS). The epidemiology, diagnostic strategy, and management of these patients has been updated. The authors propose a new and simple diagnostic algorithm to support clinical decision making in cases of suspected AAS, thereby minimizing diagnostic delays, misdiagnoses, and unnecessary advanced imaging. AAS-related entities are reviewed, and a guideline to avoid imaging misinterpretation is provided. Centralization of patients with AAS in high-volume centers with high-volume surgeons is key to improving clinical outcomes. Thus, the role of multidisciplinary teams, an "aorta code" (streamlined emergent care pathway), and aortic centers in the management of these patients is boosted. A tailored patient treatment approach for each of these acute aortic entities is needed, and as such has been summarized. Finally, a set of prevention measures against AAS is discussed.

Diagnostic accuracy of D-dimer in patients at high-risk for splanchnic vein thrombosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

D-dimer is included in the diagnostic algorithm for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. However, its role in the diagnosis of splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) is still controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of D-dimer for SVT.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis (PROSPERO protocol registration number: CRD42020184300). The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to March 2021 week 4. Studies which evaluated D-dimer accuracy for SVT in any category of patients were selected. The index test was any D-dimer assay; the reference standard was any radiological imaging. The QUADAS-2 checklist was used for the risk of bias assessment. A bivariate random-effects regression model was used to calculate summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity.

RESULTS

12 studies (with a total of 1298 patients) evaluating the accuracy of D-dimer in patients at high risk of SVT (surgical patients, patients with liver cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma) were included. None of the included studies was at low risk of bias. The weighted mean prevalence of SVT was 33.4% (95% CI, 22.5-45.2%, I2 = 94.8%). D-dimer accuracy was expressed by sensitivity 96% (95% CI, 72-100%); specificity 25% (95% CI, 5-67%); positive likelihood ratio 1.3 (95% CI, 0.9-1.9); negative likelihood ratio 0.16 (95% CI, 0.03-0.84); area under the ROC curve 0.80 (95% CI, 0.76-0.83).

CONCLUSIONS

D-dimer seems to have high sensitivity in the diagnosis of patients at high-risk for SVT. However, there is a strong need for more robust evidence on this topic.

Can D-Dimer in Low-Risk Patients Exclude Aortic Dissection in the Emergency Department?

BACKGROUND

Aortic dissection (AD) is a challenging diagnosis associated with severe mortality. However, acute AD is a rare clinical entity and can be overevaluated in the emergency department. D-dimer, both alone and in combination with the Aortic Dissection Detection Risk Score (ADD-RS), has been studied as a tool to evaluate for AD.

CLINICAL QUESTION

Can a negative D-dimer in low-risk patients exclude AD in the emergency department?

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Retrieved studies included three systematic review and meta-analyses and two prospective cohort studies. D-dimer was found to be highly sensitive for acute AD, with a sensitivity of 98.0%. The ADD-RS was also highly sensitive (95.7%) for AD. Two meta-analyses reported a combination of a negative D-dimer and ADD-RS < 1 to have a pooled sensitivity of 99.9% and 100% for acute aortic syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither D-dimer nor the ADD-RS alone provides adequate sensitivity to exclude acute AD. However, a negative D-dimer combined with an ADD-RS < 1 is likely sufficient to rule out AD. Even with these findings, physicians must place clinical judgment above laboratory testing or scoring systems when deciding whether to pursue a diagnosis of acute AD.

Why the aortic dissection detection risk score is problematic in emergency departments

Acute aortic syndromes, including aortic dissection (AD), are rare. The AD detection risk score (ADDRS) and associated investigation pathway were developed to reduce missed diagnosis of AD. The methodology for its development was sub-optimal and it has not been robustly validated in the emergency department chest pain population. Recent research suggests that it will drive over-investigation and that the risks of missed diagnosis may not be in balance with the risks of the testing strategy. There are serious doubts about whether the score and investigation pathway are fit for purpose.

Indirect signs of aortic dissection on POC-TTE despite an ADD-RS of 0 and D-dimer < 500 ng/mL: A case report

Aortic dissection (AD) is a "can't miss" diagnosis for emergency physicians. An algorithm combining the Aortic Dissection Detection Risk Score (ADD-RS) with D-dimer has been proposed as a high-sensitivity clinical decision tool for AD that can determine the need for advanced imaging. Here we present a case of a 48-year-old male who presented to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain and dyspnea. He had an ADD-RS score of 0 and negative D-dimer, which placed him in the low-risk category not requiring further advanced imaging. Despite this, he was found to have a pericardial effusion and dilated aortic root on point-of-care transthoracic echocardiogram (POC-TTE). These findings increased suspicion for AD and prompted the emergency physician to order a computed tomography angiography (CTA), revealing a thoracic AD. The patient successfully underwent surgical repair. This case demonstrates that the ADD-RS + D-dimer algorithm would have erroneously ruled out AD, without the inclusion of indirect findings of AD from the POC-TTE. This highlights the value of using POC-TTE as an adjunct to the ADD-RS + D-dimer algorithm in the diagnostic evaluation of AD and how giving more weight to indirect signs of AD on POC-TTE could potentially increase the sensitivity of the combined ADD-RS + D-dimer + POC-TTE algorithm.

Development and Validation of a Simplified Probability Assessment Score Integrated With Age-Adjusted d-Dimer for Diagnosis of Acute Aortic Syndromes

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.

Diagnosis and management of acute aortic syndromes in the emergency department

Acute aortic syndromes (AASs) are deadly cardiovascular emergencies involving the thoracic aorta. AASs are relatively rare conditions, have unspecific signs and symptoms (including truncal pain, syncope, neurologic deficit and limb ischemia) and require contrast-enhanced tomography angiography (CTA) of the chest and abdomen for conclusive diagnosis and subsequent therapeutic planning. In the Emergency Department (ED), most patients with potential signs/symptoms of AASs are finally found affected by other alternative diagnoses. Hence, misdiagnosis and delayed diagnosis of AASs are major concerns. In critically ill patients, decision to perform CTA is usually straightforward, as exam benefits largely outweigh risks. In patients with ST-tract elevation on ECG, suspected primary ischemic stroke and in stable patients (representing the most prevalent ED scenarios), proper selection of patients necessitating CTA is cumbersome, due to concurrent risks of misdiagnosis and over-testing. Available studies support an algorithm integrating clinical probability assessment, bedside echocardiography and D-dimer (if the clinical probability is not high). Therapeutic management includes medical therapy for all patients including an opioid and anti-impulse drugs (a beta-blocker and a vasodilator), targeting a heart rate of 60 bpm and systolic blood pressure of 100-120 mmHg. Patients with AASs involving the ascending aorta are likely candidate for urgent surgery, and complicated type B AASs (severe aortic dilatation, impending or frank rupture, organ malperfusion, refractory pain, severe hypertension) necessitate evaluation for urgent endovascular treatment. For uncomplicated type B AASs, optimal medical therapy is the current standard of care.

Imaging and Biomarkers in Acute Aortic Syndromes: Diagnostic and Prognostic Implications

Acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is an emergency and life-threatening condition including aortic dissection, intramural hematoma, penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer and iatrogenic-traumatic aortic injury. An integrated multiparametric approach (clinical history and examination, electrocardiogram, biomarkers and imaging techniques) is recommended in order to make timely and accurate diagnosis, delineate the prognosis, choose the most appropriate therapeutic interventions tailored for the individual patient. Nowadays the best imaging strategy for diagnosing AAS and its complications is a combination of transthoracic echocardiography and computed tomography angiography (CTA). Transesophageal echocardiography tends to be carried out in complicated cases prior to surgical or endovascular therapy, often in the operating room and under general anesthesia. In this regard, intravascular ultrasound and intraluminal phase array imaging may be implemented during the endovascular procedures depending on operator expertise and cost issues. On the other hand, owing to its intrinsic characteristics, magnetic resonance imaging is an ideal imaging technique for serial measurements in patients at risk of AAS or with chronic dissection. Among biomarkers, D-dimer is the closest to "golden status" (high sensitivity and low negative likelihood ratio). Interestingly, 18fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT is increasingly being used along with specific serologic biomarkers (white blood cells, C-reactive protein, fibrinogen and D-dimer) to detect and monitor vascular inflammation affecting the aorta and systemic arteries. It is expected, in the near future, the development of serologic and imaging biomarkers able to early detect clinically-silent pathologic changes in the aorta wall before (primary prevention) and after (secondary prevention) the acute index event.