Misdiagnosis of type A acute aortic dissection in the emergency department: 10 Year retrospective cohort study

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background Type A acute aortic dissection (TAAAD) is a serious cardiovascular disease with a high mortality rate and prompt diagnosis is the key to survival. However, misdiagnosis is common in the Emergency Department (ED). The aim of this study is to evaluate the rate of misdiagnosis, factors associated with misdiagnosis and patient outcomes. Methods This retrospective cohort study recruited 91 patients with TAAAD at the ED of a tertiary university hospital in Hong Kong from 2013 to 2022. Patients were divided into the following two groups: correct diagnosis (60 patients) and misdiagnosis (31 patients) of TAAAD. Clinical symptoms, signs, and investigations were analyzed as factors associated with misdiagnosis by multivariate analysis. In‐patient mortality, 30‐day mortality, 1‐year mortality, and hospital length of stay (LOS) were compared between the two groups. Results The misdiagnosis rate of TAAAD was 34.1% (31/91). Absence of severe intensity pain (OR = 6.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.41–25.63, p = 0.015), less urgent triage category (OR = 4.46, 95% CI = 1.77–11.22, p = 0.002), and absence of point‐of‐care ultrasound exam (POCUS) (OR = 13.00, 95% CI = 3.05–55.40, p = 0.001) were associated with misdiagnosis. There were no statistically significant differences between correct diagnosis and misdiagnosis groups in patient outcomes including in‐hospital mortality (28.3% vs. 38.7%), 30‐day mortality (28.3% vs. 38.7%), 1‐year mortality (30.0% vs. 41.9%), or hospital LOS (15.5 ± 15.6 days vs. 14.7 ± 15.5 days). Conclusions One‐third of cases in our study were misdiagnosed. The absence of severe intensity pain, less urgent triage category, and absence of POCUS ultrasound exam were independent factors associated with misdiagnosis. More widespread use of POCUS of the aorta and heart may help to improve the diagnosis of TAAAD in the ED.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.