Case Report: Type 1 aortic dissection presenting as acute pericarditis: the roles of POCUS and transthoracic echocardiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical Presentation: A 59 year old male presented with a 1 day history of non-exertional chest pain that was pleuritic in nature and aggravated by lying flat. His chest pain symptoms were preceded by a one week history of “flu-like” symptoms. Physical exam demonstrated a blood pressure of 114/55 mmHg, heart rate of 75 bpm, and a normal oxygen saturation on room air. Cardiac examination revealed a biphasic pericardial rub vs. to-and-fro murmur. EKG demonstrated diffused ST-elevation and PR depression consistent with acute pericarditis. Laboratory findings revealed a normal WBC of 11.2×109/L and hsTnT of 78 ng/L. Imaging Findings: A point of care ultrasound (POCUS) assessment demonstrated mild aortic insufficiency with a dilated ascending aorta with no pericardial effusion or wall motion abnormalities. An expedited transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) confirmed a bicuspid aortic valve with moderate aortic insufficiency. The aortic root and ascending aorta were dilated at 50 and 52 mm, respectively. There was evidence of an aortic dissection flap prolapsing across the left ventricular outflow tract. A dissection flap was also visualized within the abdominal aorta consistent with a Type 1 aortic dissection. Computed tomography of the aorta confirmed the Type 1 aortic dissection and the patient underwent an urgent valve-sparing aortic root replacement procedure. Discussion Points: Despite a typical clinical presentation for acute pericarditis, any unexpected physical exam or laboratory findings should lead to a POCUS assessment. This case demonstrates a rare presentation of aortic dissection which could have been easily missed without a POCUS assessment. Here we propose an algorithm for a POCUS examination in setting of pleuritic chest pain consistent with pericarditis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".