Why the study?
Can intravenous ultrasound contrast agent distinguish aortic dissection from cardiorrhexis in a patient with cardiac tamponade?
Can intravenous ultrasound contrast agent distinguish aortic dissection from cardiorrhexis in a patient with cardiac tamponade?
This case report describes the novel use of ultrasound contrast microbubbles to exclude ventricular free-wall rupture in a patient with cardiac tamponade caused by aortic dissection.
May aid tamponade etiology differentiation in select cases; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical adoption.
We report a case of a ruptured proximal aortic dissection with cardiac tamponade, which masqueraded as myocardial rupture or cardiorrhexis. An 84-year-old female had sudden onset of chest pain with loss of consciousness and a mechanical fall. Echocardiography demonstrated pericardial effusion with hematoma overlying the apicallateral wall and an echo free space suggestive of contained, ventricular free-wall rupture. However, intravenous injection of ultrasound contrast agent revealed no flow into the pericardial space excluding cardiorrhexis. Refractory hemodynamic compromise required an emergency pericardial window, but the patient remained unstable. Surgical exploration revealed a Debakey Type-A aortic dissection with communication into the pericardial space. To our knowledge, this is the first description of the use of ultrasound contrast microbubbles as a diagnostic strategy to exclude cardiorrhexis. The impact of tamponade treatment as the result of aortic dissections and the diagnostic challenge in differentiating it from other catastrophic causes of tamponade are reviewed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Joel A. Garcia Mori J. Krantz (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: