Why do emergency department clinicians miss acute aortic syndrome? A case series and descriptive analysis

IF 0.4 Q4 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Rachel McLatchie, Sarah Wilson, Matthew Reed, Francoise Ticehurst, Kathryn Easterford, Salma Alawiye, Alicia Cowan, Aakash Gupta
{"title":"Why do emergency department clinicians miss acute aortic syndrome? A case series and descriptive analysis","authors":"Rachel McLatchie, Sarah Wilson, Matthew Reed, Francoise Ticehurst, Kathryn Easterford, Salma Alawiye, Alicia Cowan, Aakash Gupta","doi":"10.4081/ecj.2023.11153","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: To understand why the diagnosis of AAS is missed in the ED, and to characterise the presenting features of cases in which a diagnosis of AAS was missed.
 Methods: A retrospective case series cohort study was performed, identifying and analysing cases where AAS was misdiagnosed in three UK EDs between 1st January 2011 and 31st December 2020.
 Results: 43 cases were included, 22 of which were type A aortic dissections. The most common incorrect presumed diagnoses made were acute coronary syndrome (28%), pulmonary embolism (12%) and ‘non-specific chest pain’ (12%). In 31 cases (72%) there was no evidence from the notes that the clinician had considered AAS in the differential diagnosis. In 10 cases (23%), AAS was considered, but the clinician was falsely reassured by atypical or resolved symptoms, clinical examination, or normal chest x-ray.
 Conclusions: ED clinicians may miss AAS by not considering it as a possibility, being falsely reassured by atypical or resolved symptoms, or mistaking it for other more common conditions. Further prospective work is necessary to establish the role of diagnostic aids and biomarkers in UK EDs.","PeriodicalId":51984,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Care Journal","volume":"333 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Care Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4081/ecj.2023.11153","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Objectives: To understand why the diagnosis of AAS is missed in the ED, and to characterise the presenting features of cases in which a diagnosis of AAS was missed. Methods: A retrospective case series cohort study was performed, identifying and analysing cases where AAS was misdiagnosed in three UK EDs between 1st January 2011 and 31st December 2020. Results: 43 cases were included, 22 of which were type A aortic dissections. The most common incorrect presumed diagnoses made were acute coronary syndrome (28%), pulmonary embolism (12%) and ‘non-specific chest pain’ (12%). In 31 cases (72%) there was no evidence from the notes that the clinician had considered AAS in the differential diagnosis. In 10 cases (23%), AAS was considered, but the clinician was falsely reassured by atypical or resolved symptoms, clinical examination, or normal chest x-ray. Conclusions: ED clinicians may miss AAS by not considering it as a possibility, being falsely reassured by atypical or resolved symptoms, or mistaking it for other more common conditions. Further prospective work is necessary to establish the role of diagnostic aids and biomarkers in UK EDs.
急诊科临床医生为什么会遗漏急性主动脉综合征?案例系列和描述性分析
目的:了解ED漏诊AAS的原因,并描述漏诊AAS病例的表现特征。 方法:进行回顾性病例系列队列研究,确定并分析2011年1月1日至2020年12月31日期间英国三家急诊科误诊AAS的病例。结果:共纳入43例,其中A型主动脉夹层22例。最常见的错误推定诊断是急性冠状动脉综合征(28%)、肺栓塞(12%)和“非特异性胸痛”(12%)。在31例(72%)病例中,没有证据表明临床医生在鉴别诊断中考虑了AAS。10例(23%)考虑AAS,但临床医生通过症状不典型或缓解、临床检查或胸部x线正常而错误地放心。 结论:ED的临床医生可能会忽略AAS,因为没有考虑到它的可能性,被不典型或已解决的症状错误地安慰,或将其误认为其他更常见的疾病。进一步的前瞻性工作是必要的,以确定诊断辅助和生物标志物在英国ed中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Emergency Care Journal
Emergency Care Journal EMERGENCY MEDICINE-
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
60.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信