Quantitative myocardial contrast echocardiography during pharmacological stress for diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies.

AIMS: We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of quantitative stress myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE) in coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS AND RESULTS: Database search was performed through January 2008. We included studies evaluating accuracy of quantitative stress MCE for detection of CAD compared with coronary angiography or single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and measuring reserve parameters of A, beta, and Abeta. Data from studies were verified and supplemented by the authors of each study. Using random effects meta-analysis, we estimated weighted mean difference (WMD), likelihood ratios (LRs), diagnostic odds ratios (DORs), and summary area under curve (AUC), all with 95% confidence interval (CI). Of 1443 studies, 13 including 627 patients (age range, 38-75 years) and comparing MCE with angiography (n = 10), SPECT (n = 1), or both (n = 2) were eligible. WMD (95% CI) were significantly less in CAD group than no-CAD group: 0.12 (0.06-0.18) (P < 0.001), 1.38 (1.28-1.52) (P < 0.001), and 1.47 (1.18-1.76) (P < 0.001) for A, beta, and Abeta reserves, respectively. Pooled LRs for positive test were 1.33 (1.13-1.57), 3.76 (2.43-5.80), and 3.64 (2.87-4.78) and LRs for negative test were 0.68 (0.55-0.83), 0.30 (0.24-0.38), and 0.27 (0.22-0.34) for A, beta, and Abeta reserves, respectively. Pooled DORs were 2.09 (1.42-3.07), 15.11 (7.90-28.91), and 14.73 (9.61-22.57) and AUCs were 0.637 (0.594-0.677), 0.851 (0.828-0.872), and 0.859 (0.842-0.750) for A, beta, and Abeta reserves, respectively. CONCLUSION: Evidence supports the use of quantitative MCE as a non-invasive test for detection of CAD. Standardizing MCE quantification analysis and adherence to reporting standards for diagnostic tests could enhance the quality of evidence in this field.

Misdiagnosis of aortic dissection: experience of 361 patients.

Aortic dissection (AD) is a life-threatening condition that requires immediate diagnosis and surgical correction. Patients with acute AD usually present clinically with an insignificant medical history, leading to a high probability of misdiagnosis. The aim of the present study was to investigate the number of misdiagnoses of patients with AD in order to understand this problem and to avoid future misdiagnosis in the emergency department. Clinical data from 361 patients with AD admitted between January 2003 and June 2008 were reviewed as part of a retrospective chart review. Diagnosis of AD was made using either chest x-ray, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or angiography. Fifty-one patients had an initial misdiagnosis (14.1%), later found to have experienced AD. The condition may clinically present in a varied number of manifestations, including syncope, chest pain, abdominal pain, back pain, acute congestive heart failure, or alternatively with minimal symptoms. Persons of any age can experience an AD, with key clinical manifestations of pain. Echocardiography can be used for primary examination of patients with suspected AD; however, a definite diagnosis is usually made using computed tomographic or magnetic resonance angiography. Care should be taken, particularly in the emergency department, to maintain a level of suspicion for AD diagnosis in order to avoid the potential for misdiagnosis.