Emergency CT misdiagnosis in acute aortic syndrome
Key result
Emergency CT assessment of acute aortic syndrome by non-specialist radiologists resulted in diagnostic discrepancies in 31% of confirmed cases, whereas no discrepancies occurred among specialists.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to assess the accuracy of emergency CT reports at presentation in acute aortic syndrome.
What is the accuracy of emergency CT reports at presentation for acute aortic syndrome?
Population
88 consecutive confirmed cases of AAS presenting across three acute hospitals
Comparison
Original emergency CT reports vs review by two cardiovascular radiologists
Design
Retrospective cross-sectional study
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Caution advised for non-specialist emergency CT reads in acute aortic syndrome; leaves open whether specialist review improves outcomes.
Study Design
Type
Cross-Sectional (n=88)
Multicenter
Yes
Structured PICO
What is the accuracy of emergency CT reports at presentation for acute aortic syndrome?
P
Population
88 consecutive adult patients with confirmed acute aortic syndrome presenting to three acute hospitals between 2013 and 2016.
E
Exposure
Emergency CT assessment and reporting
O
Outcome
Accuracy of emergency CT reports at presentation (discrepancies related to diagnosis, complications, and classification)surrogate
Main Result
Absolute Event Rate: 31% vs 0%
Significant discrepancies are common in emergency CT reports of acute aortic syndrome by non-specialist radiologists, highlighting the need for urgent specialist cardiovascular imaging review.
Cite This Study
Dreisbach et al. (2021) conducted a cross-sectional in Acute aortic syndrome (AAS) (n=88). Emergency CT assessment by non-specialist radiologists vs. Specialist cardiovascular radiologists was evaluated on Discrepancies in emergency CT reports related to diagnosis, complications, and classification. Emergency CT assessment of acute aortic syndrome by non-specialist radiologists resulted in diagnostic discrepancies in 31% of confirmed cases, whereas no discrepancies occurred among specialists.