Suspected Acute Aortic Syndrome

Variant: 1 Acute chest pain; suspected acute aortic syndrome.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US echocardiography transesophageal	Usually Appropriate	O
Radiography chest	Usually Appropriate	☢
MRA chest abdomen pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRA chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CT chest with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CTA chest with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CTA chest abdomen pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢☢
US echocardiography transthoracic resting	May Be Appropriate	O
Aortography chest	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRA chest abdomen pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRA chest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI chest abdomen pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT chest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CTA coronary arteries with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI chest abdomen pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Special Imaging Considerations

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Acute chest pain; suspected acute aortic syndrome.

Variant 1: Acute chest pain; suspected acute aortic syndrome.
A. Aortography Chest

Variant 1: Acute chest pain; suspected acute aortic syndrome.
B. CT Chest Without IV Contrast

Variant 1: Acute chest pain; suspected acute aortic syndrome.
C. CT Chest With IV Contrast

Variant 1: Acute chest pain; suspected acute aortic syndrome.
D. CT Chest Without and With IV Contrast

Variant 1: Acute chest pain; suspected acute aortic syndrome.
E. CTA Coronary Arteries

Variant 1: Acute chest pain; suspected acute aortic syndrome.
F. CTA Chest With IV Contrast

Variant 1: Acute chest pain; suspected acute aortic syndrome.
G. CTA Chest, Abdomen, and Pelvis With IV Contrast

Variant 1: Acute chest pain; suspected acute aortic syndrome.
H. MRA Chest Without IV Contrast

Variant 1: Acute chest pain; suspected acute aortic syndrome.
I. MRA Chest Without and With IV Contrast

Variant 1: Acute chest pain; suspected acute aortic syndrome.
J. MRA Chest, Abdomen, and Pelvis Without IV Contrast

Variant 1: Acute chest pain; suspected acute aortic syndrome.
K. MRA Chest, Abdomen, and Pelvis Without and With IV Contrast

Variant 1: Acute chest pain; suspected acute aortic syndrome.
L. MRI Chest, Abdomen, and Pelvis Without IV Contrast

Variant 1: Acute chest pain; suspected acute aortic syndrome.
M. MRI Chest, Abdomen, and Pelvis Without and With IV Contrast

Variant 1: Acute chest pain; suspected acute aortic syndrome.
N. Radiography Chest

Variant 1: Acute chest pain; suspected acute aortic syndrome.
O. US Echocardiography Transesophageal

Variant 1: Acute chest pain; suspected acute aortic syndrome.
P. US Echocardiography Transthoracic Resting

Summary of Recommendations

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Pape LA, Awais M, Woznicki EM, et al. Presentation, Diagnosis, and Outcomes of Acute Aortic Dissection: 17-Year Trends From the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 66(4):350-8, 2015 Jul 28.
2.	Sidloff D, Choke E, Stather P, Bown M, Thompson J, Sayers R. Mortality from thoracic aortic diseases and associations with cardiovascular risk factors. Circulation. 130(25):2287-94, 2014 Dec 23.
3.	Nienaber CA, Eagle KA. Aortic dissection: new frontiers in diagnosis and management: Part I: from etiology to diagnostic strategies. Circulation. 2003;108(5):628-635.
4.	Romano L, Pinto A, Gagliardi N. Multidetector-row CT evaluation of nontraumatic acute thoracic aortic syndromes. [Review] [85 refs]. Radiol Med (Torino). 112(1):1-20, 2007 Feb.
5.	Mussa FF, Horton JD, Moridzadeh R, Nicholson J, Trimarchi S, Eagle KA. Acute Aortic Dissection and Intramural Hematoma: A Systematic Review. [Review]. JAMA. 316(7):754-63, 2016 Aug 16.
6.	Erbel R, Alfonso F, Boileau C, et al. Diagnosis and management of aortic dissection. Eur Heart J. 2001;22(18):1642-1681.
7.	Pelzel JM, Braverman AC, Hirsch AT, Harris KM. International heterogeneity in diagnostic frequency and clinical outcomes of ascending aortic intramural hematoma. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2007;20:1260-8.
8.	Macura KJ, Corl FM, Fishman EK, Bluemke DA. Pathogenesis in acute aortic syndromes: aortic dissection, intramural hematoma, and penetrating atherosclerotic aortic ulcer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:309-16.
9.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria®: Nontraumatic Aortic Disease. Available at: https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/3082597/Narrative/.
10.	Coady MA, Rizzo JA, Goldstein LJ, Elefteriades JA. Natural history, pathogenesis, and etiology of thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissections. Cardiol Clin. 1999;17(4):615-635; vii.
11.	Lempel JK, Frazier AA, Jeudy J, et al. Aortic arch dissection: a controversy of classification. Radiology. 271(3):848-55, 2014 Jun.
12.	American College of Radiology. ACR–NASCI–SIR–SPR Practice Parameter for the Performance and Interpretation of Body Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA). Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=164+&releaseId=2.
13.	Chirillo F, Cavallini C, Longhini C, et al. Comparative diagnostic value of transesophageal echocardiography and retrograde aortography in the evaluation of thoracic aortic dissection. Am J Cardiol. 1994;74(6):590-595.
14.	Andresen J, Baekgaard N, Allermand H. Evaluation of patients with thoracic aortic dissection by intraarterial digital subtraction angiography. Vasa. 1992;21(2):167-170.
15.	Lovy AJ, Rosenblum JK, Levsky JM, et al. Acute aortic syndromes: a second look at dual-phase CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 200(4):805-11, 2013 Apr.
16.	Vantine PR, Rosenblum JK, Schaeffer WG, et al. Can non-contrast-enhanced CT (NECT) triage patients suspected of having non-traumatic acute aortic syndromes (AAS)?. EMERG. RADIOL.. 22(1):19-24, 2015 Feb.
17.	Lemos AA, Pezzullo JC, Fasani P, et al. Can the unenhanced phase be eliminated from dual-phase CT angiography for chest pain? Implications for diagnostic accuracy in acute aortic intramural hematoma. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 203(6):1171-80, 2014 Dec.
18.	Shaida N, Bowden DJ, Barrett T, et al. Acceptability of virtual unenhanced CT of the aorta as a replacement for the conventional unenhanced phase. Clin Radiol. 67(5):461-7, 2012 May.
19.	Vlahos I, Chung R, Nair A, Morgan R. Dual-energy CT: vascular applications. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199(5 Suppl):S87-97.
20.	Vlahos I, Godoy MC, Naidich DP. Dual-energy computed tomography imaging of the aorta. [Review]. J Thorac Imaging. 25(4):289-300, 2010 Nov.
21.	Moore AG, Eagle KA, Bruckman D, et al. Choice of computed tomography, transesophageal echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging, and aortography in acute aortic dissection: International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD). Am J Cardiol. 89(10):1235-8, 2002 May 15.
22.	Yoshida S, Akiba H, Tamakawa M, et al. Thoracic involvement of type A aortic dissection and intramural hematoma: diagnostic accuracy--comparison of emergency helical CT and surgical findings. Radiology. 228(2):430-5, 2003 Aug.
23.	Ballal RS, Nanda NC, Gatewood R, et al. Usefulness of transesophageal echocardiography in assessment of aortic dissection. Circulation. 1991;84(5):1903-1914.
24.	Laissy JP, Blanc F, Soyer P, et al. Thoracic aortic dissection: diagnosis with transesophageal echocardiography versus MR imaging. Radiology. 1995;194(2):331-336.
25.	Nienaber CA, von Kodolitsch Y, Nicolas V, et al. The diagnosis of thoracic aortic dissection by noninvasive imaging procedures. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(1):1-9.
26.	Sommer T, Fehske W, Holzknecht N, et al. Aortic dissection: a comparative study of diagnosis with spiral CT, multiplanar transesophageal echocardiography, and MR imaging. Radiology. 1996;199(2):347-352.
27.	Sailer AM, van Kuijk SM, Nelemans PJ, et al. Computed Tomography Imaging Features in Acute Uncomplicated Stanford Type-B Aortic Dissection Predict Late Adverse Events. Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging. 10(4), 2017 Apr.Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 10(4), 2017 Apr.
28.	Knollmann FD, Lacomis JM, Ocak I, Gleason T. The role of aortic wall CT attenuation measurements for the diagnosis of acute aortic syndromes. Eur J Radiol. 82(12):2392-8, 2013 Dec.
29.	Moral S, Cuellar H, Avegliano G, et al. Clinical Implications of Focal Intimal Disruption in Patients With Type B Intramural Hematoma. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 69(1):28-39, 2017 Jan 03.
30.	Cho KR, Stanson AW, Potter DD, Cherry KJ, Schaff HV, Sundt TM, 3rd. Penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer of the descending thoracic aorta and arch. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2004;127:1393-9; discussion 99-401.
31.	McMahon MA, Squirrell CA. Multidetector CT of Aortic Dissection: A Pictorial Review. [Review] [64 refs]. Radiographics. 30(2):445-60, 2010 Mar.
32.	Rogg JG, De Neve JW, Huang C, et al. The triple work-up for emergency department patients with acute chest pain: how often does it occur?. J Emerg Med. 40(2):128-34, 2011 Feb.
33.	Halpern EJ. Triple-rule-out CT angiography for evaluation of acute chest pain and possible acute coronary syndrome. Radiology. 2009;252(2):332-345.
34.	Rubin GD. MDCT imaging of the aorta and peripheral vessels. Eur J Radiol. 2003;45 Suppl 1:S42-49.
35.	Shiga T, Wajima Z, Apfel CC, Inoue T, Ohe Y. Diagnostic accuracy of transesophageal echocardiography, helical computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging for suspected thoracic aortic dissection: systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review] [27 refs]. Arch Intern Med. 166(13):1350-6, 2006 Jul 10.
36.	Krishnam MS, Tomasian A, Malik S, Desphande V, Laub G, Ruehm SG. Image quality and diagnostic accuracy of unenhanced SSFP MR angiography compared with conventional contrast-enhanced MR angiography for the assessment of thoracic aortic diseases. Eur Radiol. 20(6):1311-20, 2010 Jun.
37.	Pereles FS, McCarthy RM, Baskaran V, et al. Thoracic aortic dissection and aneurysm: evaluation with nonenhanced true FISP MR angiography in less than 4 minutes. Radiology. 2002;223(1):270-274.
38.	Barron DJ, Livesey SA, Brown IW, Delaney DJ, Lamb RK, Monro JL. Twenty-year follow-up of acute type a dissection: the incidence and extent of distal aortic disease using magnetic resonance imaging. J Card Surg. 1997;12(3):147-159.
39.	Cigarroa JE, Isselbacher EM, DeSanctis RW, Eagle KA. Diagnostic imaging in the evaluation of suspected aortic dissection. Old standards and new directions. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(1):35-43.
40.	Nienaber CA, Spielmann RP, von Kodolitsch Y, et al. Diagnosis of thoracic aortic dissection. Magnetic resonance imaging versus transesophageal echocardiography. Circulation. 1992;85(2):434-447.
41.	Eyler WR, Clark MD. Dissecting aneurysms of the aorta: roentgen manifestations including a comparison with other types of aneurysms. Radiology. 1965;85(6):1047-1057.
42.	Lovy AJ, Bellin E, Levsky JM, Esses D, Haramati LB. Preliminary development of a clinical decision rule for acute aortic syndromes. American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 31(11):1546-50, 2013 Nov.
43.	Adachi H, Omoto R, Kyo S, et al. Emergency surgical intervention of acute aortic dissection with the rapid diagnosis by transesophageal echocardiography. Circulation. 1991;84(5 Suppl):III14-19.
44.	Keren A, Kim CB, Hu BS, et al. Accuracy of biplane and multiplane transesophageal echocardiography in diagnosis of typical acute aortic dissection and intramural hematoma. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996; 28(3):627-636.
45.	Omoto R, Kyo S, Matsumura M, et al. Evaluation of biplane color Doppler transesophageal echocardiography in 200 consecutive patients. Circulation. 1992;85(4):1237-1247.
46.	Willens HJ, Kessler KM. Transesophageal echocardiography in the diagnosis of diseases of the thoracic aorta: part 1. Aortic dissection, aortic intramural hematoma, and penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer of the aorta. Chest. 1999;116(6):1772-1779.
47.	Agricola E, Slavich M, Bertoglio L, et al. The role of contrast enhanced transesophageal echocardiography in the diagnosis and in the morphological and functional characterization of acute aortic syndromes. The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging. 30(1):31-8, 2014 Jan.Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 30(1):31-8, 2014 Jan.
48.	Erbel R, Engberding R, Daniel W, Roelandt J, Visser C, Rennollet H. Echocardiography in diagnosis of aortic dissection. Lancet. 1989;1(8636):457-461.
49.	Evangelista A, Avegliano G, Aguilar R, et al. Impact of contrast-enhanced echocardiography on the diagnostic algorithm of acute aortic dissection. Eur Heart J. 2010;31(4):472-479.
50.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.