Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39697952›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Misdiagnosis of Aortic Dissection Due to Streak Artifact in the Descending Aorta.

Takushi Santanda, Yuichi Nakamura, Joji Ito

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Takushi SantandaDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Itabashi Chuo Medical Center, Itabashi, JPN.
Yuichi NakamuraDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Itabashi Chuo Medical Center, Itabashi, JPN.
Joji ItoDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Tokyo Bay Urayasu Ichikawa Medical Center, Urayasu, JPN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Contrast-enhanced CT is a primary tool in emergency departments for diagnosing acute aortic dissection, demonstrating high sensitivity and specificity. However, artifacts such as streak artifacts can mimic aortic dissection, leading to misdiagnosis. Here, we report a case involving a 21-year-old male who sustained traumatic injuries after a motor vehicle accident. Initial contrast-enhanced CT indicated a possible localized dissection in the descending aorta. Conservative treatment was initiated under the presumption of aortic dissection. Upon re-evaluation with ECG-gated CT, the previously identified "dissection" artifact had disappeared, revealing no actual aortic injury. This case illustrates how heartbeat-induced streak artifacts, while commonly seen in the aortic root, can also manifest in the descending aorta. Our findings underscore the importance of considering artifacts in atypical cases of aortic dissection, particularly when findings are localized to areas of the aorta in close proximity to the heart. For trauma patients, while dynamic contrast-enhanced CT remains standard, ECG-gated CT should be selectively applied where motion artifacts are suspected. This case highlights the role of advanced imaging options in distinguishing between true aortic pathology and artifacts, aiding in appropriate clinical decision-making.

Indexed as

aortic dissectioncardiac pulsation artifactscontrast-enhanced ctdiagnostic imagingecg-gated ctmotion artifactsstreak artifacttraumatic aortic injury

Identifiers

PMID39697952
PMCPMC11655149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.