Why the study?
Acute aortic dissection requires prompt, precise diagnosis, and bedside echocardiography is accessible in emergency units, motivating a comparison of the diagnostic roles of TTE and TOE.
Does transoesophageal echocardiography or contrast-enhanced TTE improve diagnostic accuracy for acute aortic dissection compared to conventional transthoracic echocardiography?
Does transoesophageal echocardiography or contrast-enhanced TTE improve diagnostic accuracy for acute aortic dissection compared to conventional transthoracic echocardiography?
TOE and contrast-enhanced TTE offer superior diagnostic accuracy over conventional TTE for acute aortic dissection, though they should not be used as stand-alone diagnostic tools due to reported misdiagnoses.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Prefer TOE or contrast-enhanced TTE over conventional TTE for suspected acute aortic dissection; confirms superior accuracy in meta-analysis.
Background: Acute aortic dissection (AAD) is a life-threatening medical condition with high early fatality. Therefore, a prompt and precise diagnosis, which can be achieved through invasive and non-invasive techniques is vital. Echocardiography, unlike MRI and CT, is accessible in emergency units and bedside-compatible. The recommended echocardiographic techniques for AAD are transthoracic and transoesophageal echocardiography (TTE and TOE). Therefore, our review compares their diagnostic roles in AAD. Methods: Studies relevant to our topic were attained through a database search and manual scrutiny of references lists of articles obtained from the electronic databases. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2) has been used for quality assessment. All quantitative analyses were performed using either STATA 16 or Comprehensive Meta-Analyst software. Results: The search strategy yielded 1,798 articles, of which only 11 were eligible for inclusion. Our subgroup analysis showed that conventional TTE had a sensitivity and specificity of 85.35% and 84.51% for the diagnosis of Stanford type A AAD and was 45.89% sensitive and 87.05% specific for the diagnosis of type B AAD. However, the subgroup analysis shows that contrast-enhancement of TTE results in a sensitivity and specificity of 93.30% and 97.60% for diagnosis of type A AAD, and 83.60% and 94.50% for diagnosis of type B AAD, respectively. On the other hand, conventional TOE was 93.64% sensitive and 95.50% specific for the diagnosis of type A AAD, 99.80% sensitive and 99.87% specific for the diagnosis of type B AAD. Moreover, our analyses show that TTE has pooled false negative and positive rates of 28.6% and 18.6%, while TOE has shown false negative and positive rates of 2.4% and 4.3%, respectively. Conclusion: TOE is the more favorable diagnostic tool for AAD diagnosis than TTE. However, it cannot be used as a stand-alone diagnostic tool since misdiagnosis cases are being reported. Contrast-enhanced TTE can also diagnose AAD since it provides similar results to conventional TOE.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zaki et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: