RESUMO
Atrioesophageal fistulas are a rare complication of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) that requires rapid identification and emergent surgical repair to prevent morbidity and mortality. We report a case of a 32-year-old man with atrial fibrillation presenting with chest pain followed by rapidly progressive sepsis and embolic cerebrovascular accident 23 days after RFA. Subtle initially overlooked findings on multiple computed tomography caused a delay in diagnosis. Atrioesophageal fistulas remain diagnostically challenging. A high index of suspicion coupled with serial computed tomography of the chest with intravenous and oral contrast reviewed by a multimodal team is essential to make a timely diagnosis.
Assuntos
Fibrilação Atrial , Ablação por Cateter , Fístula Esofágica , Cardiopatias , Adulto , Fibrilação Atrial/complicações , Fibrilação Atrial/diagnóstico , Fibrilação Atrial/cirurgia , Ablação por Cateter/efeitos adversos , Diagnóstico Tardio/efeitos adversos , Fístula Esofágica/diagnóstico por imagem , Fístula Esofágica/etiologia , Átrios do Coração/diagnóstico por imagem , Átrios do Coração/cirurgia , Cardiopatias/diagnóstico , Cardiopatias/etiologia , Cardiopatias/cirurgia , Humanos , Masculino , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X/efeitos adversosRESUMO
Multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) have shown that timely triage expedites treatment. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) may help improve pulmonary embolism (PE) management with early CT pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) screening and accelerate PERT coordination. This study aimed to test the clinical validity of an FDA-approved PE AI algorithm. CTPA scan data of 200 patients referred due to automated AI detection of suspected PE were retrospectively reviewed. In our institution, all patients suspected of PE received a CTPA. The AI app was then used to analyze CTPA for the presence of PE and calculate the right-ventricle/left-ventricle (RV/LV) ratio. We compared the AI's output with the radiologists' report. Inclusion criteria included segmental PE with and without RV dysfunction and high-risk PE. The primary endpoint was false positive rate. Secondary end points included clinical outcomes according to the therapy selected, including catheter-directed interventions, systemic thrombolytics, and anticoagulation. Fifty-seven of 200 exams (28.5%) were correctly identified as positive for PE by the algorithm. A total of 143 exams (71.5%) were incorrectly reported as positive. In 8% of cases, PERT was consulted. Four patients (7%) received systemic thrombolytics without any complications. There were six patients (10.5%) who developed high-risk PE and underwent thrombectomy, one of whom died. Among 46 patients with acute PE without right heart strain, 44 (95%) survived. The false positive rate of our AI algorithm was 71.5%, higher than what was reported in the AI's prior clinical validity study (91% sensitivity, 100% specificity). A high rate of discordant AI auto-detection of suspected PE raises concerns about its diagnostic accuracy. This can lead to increased workloads for PERT consultants, alarm/notification fatigue, and automation bias. The AI direct notification process to the PERT team did not improve PERT triage efficacy.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: An accurate system to predict mortality in patients requiring intubation for COVID-19 could help to inform consent, frame family expectations and assist end-of-life decisions. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a mortality prediction system called C-TIME (COVID-19 Time of Intubation Mortality Evaluation) using variables available before intubation, determine its discriminant accuracy, and compare it to acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE IVa) and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA). METHODS: A retrospective cohort was set in 18 medical-surgical ICUs, enrolling consecutive adults, positive by SARS-CoV 2 RNA by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction or positive rapid antigen test, and undergoing endotracheal intubation. All were followed until hospital discharge or death. The combined outcome was hospital mortality or terminal extubation with hospice discharge. Twenty-five clinical and laboratory variables available 48 hours prior to intubation were entered into multiple logistic regression (MLR) and the resulting model was used to predict mortality of validation cohort patients. Area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) was calculated for C-TIME, APACHE IVa and SOFA. RESULTS: The median age of the 2,440 study patients was 66 years; 61.6 percent were men, and 50.5 percent were Hispanic, Native American or African American. Age, gender, COPD, minimum mean arterial pressure, Glasgow Coma scale score, and PaO2/FiO2 ratio, maximum creatinine and bilirubin, receiving factor Xa inhibitors, days receiving non-invasive respiratory support and days receiving corticosteroids prior to intubation were significantly associated with the outcome variable. The validation cohort comprised 1,179 patients. C-TIME had the highest AUROC of 0.75 (95%CI 0.72-0.79), vs 0.67 (0.64-0.71) and 0.59 (0.55-0.62) for APACHE and SOFA, respectively (Chi2 P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: C-TIME is the only mortality prediction score specifically developed and validated for COVID-19 patients who require mechanical ventilation. It has acceptable discriminant accuracy and goodness-of-fit to assist decision-making just prior to intubation. The C-TIME mortality prediction calculator can be freely accessed on-line at https://phoenixmed.arizona.edu/ctime.