Misdiagnosis of aortic dissection: A systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Aortic dissection is a rare but potentially catastrophic condition. Misdiagnosis of aortic dissection is not uncommon as symptoms can overlap with other diagnoses. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to better understand the factors contributing to incorrect diagnosis of this condition. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies that evaluated the misdiagnosis of aortic dissection. The rate of misdiagnosis was pooled and results were narratively synthesized. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies with were included with 1663 patients. The overall rate of misdiagnosis of aortic dissection was 33.8%. The proportion of patients presenting with chest pain, back pain and syncope were 67.5%, 24.8% and 6.8% respectively. The proportion of patients with pre-existing hypertension was 55.4%, 30.5% were smokers while the proportion of patients with coronary artery disease, previous cardiovascular surgery or surgical trauma and Marfan syndrome was 14.7%, 5.8%, and 3.7%, respectively. Factors related to misdiagnosis included the presence of symptoms and features associated with other diseases (such as acute coronary syndrome, stroke and pulmonary embolism), the absence of typical features (such as widened mediastinum on chest X-ray) or concurrent conditions such congestive heart failure. Factors associated with more accurate diagnosis included more comprehensive history taking and increased use of imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Misdiagnosis in patients with an eventual diagnosis of aortic dissection affects 1 in 3 patients. Clinicians should consider aortic dissection as differential diagnosis in patients with chest pain, back pain and syncope. Imaging should be used early to make the diagnosis when aortic dissection is suspected.

Planned Versus Bailout Rotational Atherectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Rotational atherectomy (RA) plays a central role in the treatment of heavily calcified coronary artery lesions. Our aim was to compare periprocedural characteristics and outcomes of planned (PA) vs. bailout (BA) rotational atherectomy. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and performed a meta-analysis on studies which compared PA vs. BA strategy. RESULTS: Five studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, pooling a total of 2120 patients. There was no difference in procedural success, PA vs. BA risk ratio (RR) 1.03 and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.99-1.07. Compared to BA, PA was associated with a shorter procedural time [mean difference (MD) -25.88 min, 95% CI -35.55 to -16.22], less contrast volume (MD -43.71 ml, 95% CI -69.17 to -18.25), less coronary dissections (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.26-0.99), fewer stents (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.11), and a trend favouring less periprocedural myocardial infarctions (MI) (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54-1.11). There was no difference in major adverse cardiovascular events on follow-up (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.62-1.74), death (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.59-1.64), MI (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.62-2.18), target vessel revascularization (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.36), stroke (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.46-4.86) or stent thrombosis (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.06-10.74); all PA vs. BA comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to bailout RA, planned RA resulted in significantly shorter procedural times, less contrast use, lesser dissection rates and fewer stents used. The bailout RA approach appears to enhance periprocedural risk, but there is no difference on mid-term outcomes.

Smoking cessation after acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Smoking cessation is an effective secondary prevention measure after acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We conducted a systematic review with the aim to better understand which patients have a greater propensity to quit smoking and the risk factors for continued smoking after ACS. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies that evaluated smoking cessation after ACS. The pooled rate of smoking cessation across included studies was performed. Random effects meta-analysis for different variables and their association with smoking cessation was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 39 studies with 11 228 patients were included in this review. The pooled rate of smoking cessation following ACS across 38 studies was 45.0%. Factors associated with greater likelihood of smoking cessation were attendance at cardiac rehabilitation (OR 1.90 95% CI 1.44-2.51), married/not alone (OR 1.68 95% CI 1.32-2.13), intention/attempt to quit smoking (OR 1.27 95% CI 1.11-1.46), diabetes mellitus (OR 1.24 95% CI 1.03-1.51) and hospitalised duration (OR 1.09 95% CI 1.02-1.15). Variables associated with a lower likelihood of smoking cessation were depression (OR 0.57 95% CI 0.43-0.75), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/lung disease (OR 0.73 95% CI 0.57-0.93), previous admission with acute myocardial infarction/cardiac admission (OR 0.61 95% CI 0.47-0.80), cerebrovascular disease/transient ischaemic attack (OR 0.42 95% CI 0.30-0.58) and unemployment (OR 0.37 95% CI 0.17-0.80). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of smokers with an ACS continue to smoke after admission. Patients attending cardiac rehabilitation show increased odds of quitting while people who are depressed and those with chronic lung disease were less likely to quit smoking and should be targeted for intensive smoking cessation interventions.