Dreisbach John G, Rodrigues Jonathan Cl, Roditi Giles
Department of Radiology, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Clydebank, United Kingdom.
Department of Radiology, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Br J Radiol. 2021 Oct 1;94(1126):20201294. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20201294. Epub 2021 Sep 7.
This cross-sectional study assessed the accuracy of emergency CT reports at presentation in acute aortic syndrome (AAS).
Retrospective identification of cases of AAS presenting within a large health board with three acute hospitals receiving adult patients between January 2013 and December 2016. CT studies and reports at presentation were reviewed for discrepancies related to diagnosis, complications and classification by two cardiovascular radiologists. The specialist interest of the original reporters, clinically suspected diagnosis at referral for CT and technical adequacy of the scans were also assessed. False-positive diagnoses were identified and evaluated separately.
Among 88 consecutive confirmed cases of AAS at least one discrepancy was identified in 31% ( = 27), including failure to identify or misinterpretation of the AAS itself in 15% ( = 13), haemorrhage in 13% ( = 11), branch involvement in 9% ( = 8), and misclassification in 3% ( = 3). All discrepancies occurred among the 80% ( = 70) of cases reported by radiologists without specialist cardiovascular interest. 26% ( = 23/88) of AAS cases were not clinically suspected at referral for CT and although this was associated with suboptimal protocols, only 51% of CT scans among suspected cases were technically adequate. Seven false-positive diagnoses were identified, three of which related to motion artefact.
Significant discrepancies are common in the emergency CT assessment of positive cases AAS and this study highlights important pitfalls in CT technique and interpretation. The absence of discrepancies among radiologists with specialist cardiovascular interest suggests both suspected and confirmed cases warrant urgent specialist review.
CT angiography is central to the diagnosis of AAS; however, significant radiology discrepancies are common among non-specialists. This study highlights important pitfalls in both CT technique as well as interpretation and supports routine specialist cardiovascular imaging input in the emergency assessment of AAS.
本横断面研究评估了急性主动脉综合征(AAS)就诊时急诊CT报告的准确性。
回顾性识别2013年1月至2016年12月期间在一个大型健康委员会内就诊的AAS病例,该委员会有三家接收成年患者的急症医院。由两名心血管放射科医生对就诊时的CT研究和报告进行审查,以查找与诊断、并发症和分类相关的差异。还评估了原始报告者的专业兴趣、CT转诊时临床怀疑的诊断以及扫描的技术充分性。对假阳性诊断进行单独识别和评估。
在88例连续确诊的AAS病例中,31%(n = 27)至少发现一处差异,包括15%(n = 13)未识别或误判AAS本身、13%(n = 11)出血、9%(n = 8)分支受累以及3%(n = 3)分类错误。所有差异均出现在80%(n = 70)由非心血管专业放射科医生报告的病例中。26%(n = 23/88)的AAS病例在CT转诊时未被临床怀疑,尽管这与欠佳的方案有关,但在疑似病例中只有51%的CT扫描技术充分。识别出7例假阳性诊断,其中3例与运动伪影有关。
在AAS阳性病例的急诊CT评估中,显著差异很常见,本研究突出了CT技术和解读中的重要陷阱。有心血管专业兴趣的放射科医生之间没有差异表明,疑似和确诊病例均需紧急专科复查。
CT血管造影是AAS诊断的核心;然而,非专科医生之间的显著放射学差异很常见。本研究突出了CT技术以及解读中的重要陷阱,并支持在AAS急诊评估中常规进行心血管专科影像检查。