Síguenos en Twitter     Síguenos en Facebook     Síguenos en YouTube     Siguenos en Linkedin     Correo Grupsagessa     Gmail     Yahoo Mail     Dropbox     Instagram     Slack     Google Drive     Print     StumbleUpon     StumbleUpon     StumbleUpon     StumbleUpon

SOBRE EL AUTOR **

Mi foto
FACP. Colegio de médicos de Tarragona Nº 4305520 / fgcapriles@gmail.com

WORLD EMERGENCY MEDICINE SOCIETIES & RELATED

Rebellion in EM 2019: 3 Things That Have Changed the Way I Intubate

Buscar en contenido

Contenido:

sábado, 17 de agosto de 2019

CXR for AAS

Resultado de imagen de journal feed
Journalfeed -  August 5, 2019 - By Clay Smith
..."Not the way to screen for this problem
This was a secondary analysis of ADviSED. Use of an aortic dissection detection risk score plus mediastinal enlargement on CXR had sensitivity of 67%, specificity 83%. The risk score plus any sign on CXR had sensitivity 69%, specificity 77%. For CXR alone, without the risk score, sensitivity was 54%, specificity 92% for mediastinal enlargement; sensitivity 60%, specificity 85% for any sign on CXR. Inter-rater agreement between radiologists for mediastinal enlargement was fair to moderate (k = 0.44). What this all means is that a CXR is a poor screening tool for acute aortic syndromes. If mediastinal enlargement or other signs are seen on CXR, this is concerning and needs further workup. If you suspect acute aortic syndrome, it’s best to just get a CTA."