Diagnostic accuracy of the aortic dissection detection risk score alone or with D-dimer for acute aortic syndromes: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the aortic dissection detection risk score (ADD-RS) used alone or in combination with D-dimer for detecting acute aortic syndrome (AAS) in patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of AAS. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to February 2024. Additionally, the reference lists of included studies and other systematic reviews were thoroughly searched. All diagnostic accuracy studies that assessed the use of ADD-RS alone or with D-Dimer for diagnosing AAS compared with a reference standard test (e.g. computer tomographic angiography (CTA), ECG-gated CTA, echocardiography, magnetic resonance angiography, operation, or autopsy) were included. Two reviewers independently selected and extracted data. Risk of bias was appraised using QUADAS-2 tool. Data were synthesised using hierarchical meta-analysis models. RESULTS: We selected 13 studies from the 2017 citations identified, including six studies evaluating combinations of ADD-RS alongside D-dimer>500ng/L. Summary sensitivities and specificities (95% credible interval) were: ADD-RS>0 94.6% (90%, 97.5%) and 34.7% (20.7%, 51.2%), ADD-RS>1 43.4% (31.2%, 57.1%) and 89.3% (80.4%, 94.8%); ADD RS>0 or D-Dimer>500ng/L 99.8% (98.7%, 100%) and 21.8% (12.1%, 32.6%); ADD RS>1 or D-Dimer>500ng/L 98.3% (94.9%, 99.5%) and 51.4% (38.7%, 64.1%); ADD RS>1 or ADD RS = 1 with D-dimer>500ng/L 93.1% (87.1%, 96.3%) and 67.1% (54.4%, 77.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Combinations of ADD-RS and D-dimer can be used to select patients with suspected AAS for imaging with a range of trade-offs between sensitivity (93.1% to 99.8%) and specificity (21.8% to 67.1%).

Diagnosis of Acute Aortic Syndrome in the Emergency Department (DAShED) study: an observational cohort study of people attending the emergency department with symptoms consistent with acute aortic syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is commonly delayed or missed in the ED. We describe characteristics of ED attendances with symptoms potentially associated with AAS, diagnostic performance of clinical decision tools (CDTs) and physicians and yield of CT aorta angiogram (CTA). METHODS: This was a multicentre observational cohort study of adults attending 27 UK EDs between 26 September 2022 and 30 November 2022, with potential AAS symptoms: chest, back or abdominal pain, syncope or symptoms related to malperfusion. Patients were preferably identified prospectively, but retrospective recruitment was also permitted. Anonymised, routinely collected patient data including components of CDTs, was abstracted. Clinicians treating prospectively identified patients were asked to record their perceived likelihood of AAS, prior to any confirmatory testing. Reference standard was radiological or operative confirmation of AAS. 30-day electronic patient record follow-up evaluated whether a subsequent diagnosis of AAS had been made and mortality. RESULTS: 5548 patients presented, with a median age of 55 years (IQR 37-72; n=5539). 14 (0.3%; n=5353) had confirmed AAS. 10/1046 (1.0%) patients in whom the ED clinician thought AAS was possible had AAS. 5/147 (3.4%) patients in whom AAS was considered the most likely diagnosis had AAS. 2/3319 (0.06%) patients in whom AAS was considered not possible did have AAS. 540 (10%; n=5446) patients underwent CT, of which 407 were CTA (7%). 30-day follow-up did not reveal any missed AAS diagnoses. AUROC (area under the receiver operating characteristic) curve for ED clinician AAS likelihood rating was 0.958 (95% CI 0.933 to 0.983, n=4006) and for individual CDTs were: Aortic Dissection Detection Risk Score (ADD-RS) 0.674 (95% CI 0.508 to 0.839, n=4989), AORTAs 0.689 (95% CI 0.527 to 0.852, n=5132), Canadian 0.818 (95% CI 0.686 to 0.951, n=5180) and Sheffield 0.628 (95% CI 0.467 to 0.788, n=5092). CONCLUSION: Only 0.3% of patients presenting with potential AAS symptoms had AAS but 7% underwent CTA. CDTs incorporating clinician gestalt appear to be most promising, but further prospective work is needed, including evaluation of the role of D-dimer. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05582967; NCT05582967.

A systematic review of therapeutic hypothermia for adult patients following traumatic brain injury.

INTRODUCTION: Research into therapeutic hypothermia following traumatic brain injury has been characterised by small trials of poor methodological quality, producing variable results. The Cochrane review, published in 2009, now requires updating. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of the application of therapeutic hypothermia to reduce death and disability when administered to adult patients who have been admitted to hospital following traumatic brain injury. METHODS: Two authors extracted data from each trial. Unless stated in the trial report, relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each trial. We considered P < 0 · 05 to be statistically significant. We combined data from all trials to estimate the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals for death, unfavourable outcome, and pneumonia. All statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.1 (Cochrane IMS, Oxford, UK) and Stata (Intercooled Version 12.0, StataCorp LP). Pooled RRs were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimator. The random effects model of DerSimonian and Laird was used to estimate variances for the Mantel-Haenszel and inverse variance estimators. RESULTS: Twenty studies are included in the review, while 18 provided mortality data. When the results of 18 trials that evaluated mortality as one of the outcomes were statistically aggregated, therapeutic hypothermia was associated with a significant reduction in mortality and a significant reduction in poor outcome. There was a lack of statistical evidence for an association between use of therapeutic hypothermia and increased onset of new pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to previous reviews, this systematic review found some evidence to suggest that therapeutic hypothermia may be of benefit in the treatment of traumatic brain injury. The majority of trials were of low quality, with unclear allocation concealment. Low quality trials may overestimate the effectiveness of hypothermia treatment versus standard care. There remains a need for more, high quality, randomised control trials of therapeutic hypothermia after traumatic brain injury.