Key result
Chest roentgenogram evaluation raised suspicion for dissection in 73% of acute type A aortic dissection cases versus 16% of normal cases (p < 0.001), indicating it is neither sensitive nor specific.
Why the study?
Does the presenting chest roentgenogram accurately identify acute type A aortic dissection?
Cross-Sectional (n=20)
Blinded
Does the presenting chest roentgenogram accurately identify acute type A aortic dissection?
Absolute Event Rate: 73% vs 16%
p-value: p=< 0.001
The presenting chest roentgenogram is neither sensitive nor specific for acute type A aortic dissection, and a normal reading should not delay definitive imaging like echocardiography when clinical suspicion exists.
A normal chest roentgenogram should not delay definitive imaging for suspected acute type A dissection; leaves open validation in prospective cohorts.
Acute type A aortic dissection requires early diagnosis and prompt surgical intervention. It is not entirely clear whether patients with this form of dissection have clear-cut chest roentgenogram (CXR) patterns or whether the CXR can guide the physician in directing further workup for acute aortic dissection. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of the initial CXR in arousing suspicion for acute type A aortic dissection. Twelve physicians from four specialties (emergency medicine, radiology, cardiology, and cardiothoracic surgery) evaluated the presenting CXR of ten patients with acute type A aortic dissection and the CXRs of ten normal individuals in a blinded manner. They were asked whether the CXRs were normal or abnormal (part A) and what the findings were and then were asked whether the CXRs were suspicious for acute aortic dissection (part B) and what the findings were. In part A, of the normal CXRs 81 of 120 (68%) readings were recorded as normal. Of the dissection CXRs 112 of 120 (93%) readings were recorded as abnormal (P < 0.001). In part B, the physicians were asked specifically about suspicion for aortic dissection. Of the normal CXRs 101 of 120 (84%) readings were listed as not suspicious for dissection (i.e., 16% of the normal CXRs were listed as supsicious for dissection). Of the dissection CXRs 88 of 120 (73%) readings were recorded as suspicious for dissection (p < 0.001). The most frequent findings on a dissection CXR when physicians were specifically asked about dissection included widened mediastinum in 46 of 120 (38%) followed by not suspicious for dissection in 32 of 120 (27%). Among the physician specialties the only statistically significant finding was that the cardiology group was the most likely group to find an abnormality in a "normal" CXR. This data indicates that the presenting CXR is neither sensitive nor specific for acute type A dissection. In a patient with a suspicious history or physical examination, however, a CXR showing mediastinal widening or other aortic abnormalities should increase the suspicion for dissection and warrant further workup. Furthermore in a patient with a clinical suspicion a normal CXR reading should not delay echocardiography to rule out type A dissection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gregorio et al. (2002) conducted a cross-sectional in Acute type A aortic dissection (n=20). Chest roentgenogram (CXR) vs. Normal CXR was evaluated on Suspicion for acute aortic dissection (p=< 0.001). Chest roentgenogram evaluation raised suspicion for dissection in 73% of acute type A aortic dissection cases versus 16% of normal cases (p < 0.001), indicating it is neither sensitive nor specific.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: