Adherence to recommended imaging surveillance of acutely presenting Stanford type-B aortic dissections
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective Acutely presenting Stanford type B aortic dissections (type-B AD) primarily receive medical or endovascular management and require lifelong imaging surveillance. CT and MR imaging are the best modalities to assess early indications of potentially fatal developments. Published guidelines recommend that imaging occur at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months following acute presentation, and annually thereafter. This study evaluates adherence to recommended imaging surveillance for newly presenting type-B AD patients at a tertiary hospital. Methods A retrospective review of patients presenting with a new, acute type-B AD between January 2010 and March 2017 was performed. Patient demographics, type-B AD admission details, and medical histories were obtained from electronic and paper chart reviews. CT and MR images were reviewed, and aortic sizes were measured by two independent radiologists. Patients without a clinical visit or type-B AD surveillance imaging for greater than 15 months were considered lost to follow-up after their last appointment. Overall clinical follow-up and adherence to recommended were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier graphs. Log-rank analysis assessed factors increasing risk of poor clinical follow-up and adherence to surveillance guidelines. Results Sixty-two patients (38 male, 24 female) were included. At the time of index admission, median age was 62 (SD 14), and median aortic diameter was 45 mm (SD 11.2). Median duration of overall follow-up was 24 months. Kaplan–Meier analysis of overall follow-up, censoring death, and external follow-up, indicated clinical follow-up rates of 87.1% (SE = 4.3%) at 3 months, 85.2% (SE = 4.6%) at 6 months, 77.5% (SE = 5.6%) at 12 months, and 63.8% (SE = 8.1%) at 60 months. Similar analysis of adherence to recommended imaging surveillance revealed rates of 56.5% (SE 6.3%) at 3 months, 36.9% (6.7%) at 6 months, 21.5% (6.5%) at 12 months, and 12.9% (6.1%) at 24 months. Log-rank analysis indicated that specialty arranging follow-up – medical ( n = 24) versus surgical ( n = 38) – did not impact overall follow-up or adherence to recommended guidelines. Similarly, none of patient distance to hospital, medical versus endovascular intervention, initial dissection size, smoking history, or additional medical/demographic impacted these outcomes. Conclusions At our institution, we identified a gap between imaging surveillance following type-B AD and adherence to recommended, published guidelines. This was consistent across all type-B AD patients with no subset in isolation. Multiple opportunities for quality improvement exist to facilitate improved compliance with published guidelines.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».