Diagnostic Accuracy of the Aortic Dissection Detection Risk Score Plus D-Dimer for Acute Aortic Syndromes

Peiman Nazerian(Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi), Christian Mueller(University Hospital of Basel), Alexandre de Matos Soeiro(Universidade de São Paulo), Bernd A. Leidel(Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin), Sibilla Anna Teresa Salvadeo(Policlinico San Matteo Fondazione), Francesca Giachino(Azienda Ospedaliera Citta' della Salute e della Scienza di Torino), Simone Vanni(Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi), Karin Grimm(University Hospital of Basel), Múcio Tavares de Oliveira(Universidade de São Paulo), Emanuele Pivetta(Azienda Ospedaliera Citta' della Salute e della Scienza di Torino), Enrico Lupia(Azienda Ospedaliera Citta' della Salute e della Scienza di Torino), Stefano Grifoni(Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi), Fulvio Morello(Azienda Ospedaliera Citta' della Salute e della Scienza di Torino), Elisa Capretti, Matteo Castelli, S Gualtieri, Federica Trausi, Stefania Battista, Paolo Bima, Federica Carbone, Maria Tizzani, Maria Grazia Veglio, Patrick Badertscher, Jasper Boeddinghaus, Thomas Nestelberger, Raphael Twerenbold
Circulation
October 14, 2017
Cited by 308Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Acute aortic syndromes (AASs) are rare and severe cardiovascular emergencies with unspecific symptoms. For AASs, both misdiagnosis and overtesting are key concerns, and standardized diagnostic strategies may help physicians to balance these risks. D-dimer (DD) is highly sensitive for AAS but is inadequate as a stand-alone test. Integration of pretest probability assessment with DD testing is feasible, but the safety and efficiency of such a diagnostic strategy are currently unknown. METHODS: In a multicenter prospective observational study involving 6 hospitals in 4 countries from 2014 to 2016, consecutive outpatients were eligible if they had ≥1 of the following: chest/abdominal/back pain, syncope, perfusion deficit, and if AAS was in the differential diagnosis. The tool for pretest probability assessment was the aortic dissection detection risk score (ADD-RS, 0-3) per current guidelines. DD was considered negative (DD-) if <500 ng/mL. Final case adjudication was based on conclusive diagnostic imaging, autopsy, surgery, or 14-day follow-up. Outcomes were the failure rate and efficiency of a diagnostic strategy for ruling out AAS in patients with ADD-RS=0/DD- or ADD-RS ≤1/DD-. RESULTS: A total of 1850 patients were analyzed. Of these, 438 patients (24%) had ADD-RS=0, 1071 patients (58%) had ADD-RS=1, and 341 patients (18%) had ADD-RS >1. Two hundred forty-one patients (13%) had AAS: 125 had type A aortic dissection, 53 had type B aortic dissection, 35 had intramural aortic hematoma, 18 had aortic rupture, and 10 had penetrating aortic ulcer. A positive DD test result had an overall sensitivity of 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.6-98.6) and a specificity of 64% (95% CI, 61.6-66.4) for the diagnosis of AAS; 8 patients with AAS had DD-. In 294 patients with ADD-RS=0/DD-, 1 case of AAS was observed. This yielded a failure rate of 0.3% (95% CI, 0.1-1.9) and an efficiency of 15.9% (95% CI, 14.3-17.6) for the ADD-RS=0/DD- strategy. In 924 patients with ADD-RS ≤1/DD-, 3 cases of AAS were observed. This yielded a failure rate of 0.3% (95% CI, 0.1-1) and an efficiency of 49.9% (95% CI, 47.7-52.2) for the ADD-RS ≤1/DD- strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Integration of ADD-RS (either ADD-RS=0 or ADD-RS ≤1) with DD may be considered to standardize diagnostic rule out of AAS. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02086136.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis