Talk:Aortic dissection

message: This article is full of medical jargon.  It needs to be made more accessible to the general reader. -- Beland 03:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed request, please put it on the article page if you want to use it. - FrancisTyers 16:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup request 

message: With a bit of co-operation, it could even be FAC. NCurse work 10:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which images to choose from here? NCurse work 11:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC 

message: Is anyone aware of known genetic predispositions specifically to aortic dissection? Are there any foundations pursuing research on this? In my own family, aortic dissection has caused the death of my grandmother (during childbirth with my mother), my aunt, a cousin, and nearly caused the death of my uncle (who survived by a matter of minutes), all people in otherwise excellent health. We have not been able to find anything about this kind of predisposition anywhere. None of my family has any other symptoms of Marfan, but with such a high rate of the exact same condition, it seems like there is likely something congential about it... Does anyone have any information to add to the article, or at least to point me in the right direction? -Porlob 21:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetic predisposition?

message: Partial thrombosis of the false lumen is a negative prognostic indicator  JFW | T@lk 08:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Partial thrombosis

message: Personally, as a sonographer I have diagnosed previously unknown dissections by doing a thorough transthoracic exam. Transthoracic echo may be not be as sensitive as transesophageal echo or CT in diagnosing the full extent of he dissection, especially beyond the aortic arch, but considerably sensitive to the presence of the condition in the proximal aorta up through the arch.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.223.52.149 (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transthoracic Echo could be listed a valid Diagnostic Modality 

message: recent Lancet review. JFW | T@lk 21:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lancet 

message: >6cm is not an indication of emergency surgery. I haven't access to the reference in order to disprove it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.143.244 (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  >6cm needing emergency surgery 

message: Do you think this would add anything?  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Shows both dilation and dissection of the ascending aorta. JFW | T@lk 11:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we keep the other CT image? It is hard to view IMO as some much of the chest is not shown.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice one, much clearer. I'd say remove the other one, although the legend with it is neatly done. --WS (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Uploaded a new image

message: Expect a fair amount of extra traffic as Richard Holbrooke seems to have died from aortic dissection. JFW | T@lk 08:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traffic 

message: ... seems to have arrived: doi:10.1161/​CIRCULATIONAHA.110.988568 JFW | T@lk 15:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: DOI not switched on. http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/123/20/2213 is the link. JFW | T@lk 20:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

text: doi:10.3949/ccjm.78a.11053 is a nice review. JFW | T@lk 20:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Risk scoring

message: ... for emergency physicians. doi:10.1016/j.emc.2011.12.001 JFW | T@lk 15:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And the 2010 multi-society guideline doi:10.1161/​CIR.0b013e3181d4739e JFW | T@lk 09:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagnostic review 

message: I'm planning an update drive for this article with the eventual aim of producing a Good Article. The 2010 guideline (mentioned above) is very comprehensive and could serve as a scaffold for significant updates. It goes into a fair bit of detail on the management, e.g. malperfusion (a concept not currently mentioned by name in the article), penetrating aortic ulcer as a cause, underlying genetic syndromes and who to screen, etc. Various other recommendations are made, many of which could be included.
# Classification
#* I propose this is moved to a subsection of "diagnosis", because multiple concepts need to be introduced before the classification will make any sense to the reader
# Signs and symptoms
# Causes
#* This should be sourced very tightly, and be separated in sections about predisposition and about provoking events
# Pathophysiology
#* We need to talk a bit about aneurysms, but also about the mechanism of the actual dissection. Laplace's law anyone?
# Diagnosis
#* Should we mention the "triple rule out" scan?
# Treatment
#* We need more on endovascular management, which has taken off quite impressively
# Prognosis
# Epidemiology
#* To be written
# Notable cases
#* I propose that this is changed into a "history" section, and that we only preserve the famous people whose illness has made a lasting impact.
# References
# External links
Anyone willing to help is welcome. JFW | T@lk 17:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to have another go at this. JFW | T@lk 11:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Need to work the subarticle Familial aortic dissection into this too. JFW | T@lk 14:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plans for update 

message: For a good update, I will list some sources here:
* doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60994-0 Lancet 2008 (broad review)
* doi:10.1161/​CIR.0b013e3181d4739e Circulation 2010 (American guideline)
*  Texas Heart Inst J 2011 (historical review, useful)
* doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2011.06.099 J Vasc Surg 2011 (endovascular repair of complicated type B dissections)
* doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2011.06.067 JACC 2011 (provision of surgery for type A dissection)
* doi:10.1016/j.emc.2011.12.001 Emerg Med Clin N Am 2012 (diagnosis and managment)
* doi:10.1136/bmj.d8290 BMJ 2012 (broad review)
* doi:10.1002/bjs.8840 Br J Surg 2012 (type A management)
* doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2012.07.018 Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2012 (endovascular repair of type A dissections)
* doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2012.10.006 Am Heart J 2013 (biomarkers)
* doi:10.1007/s11547-012-0815-9 Radiol Med 2013 (radiological perspective)
Oddly, there is no separate MeSH entry for aortic dissection, so the searching is more complicated than it should be. JFW | T@lk 12:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: New European guidelines: doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehu281 JFW | T@lk 22:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: D-dimer has been investigated as a biomarker to exclude aortic dissection in low probability patients:
* doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.02.013
* doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.06.030
* doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000000471
Probably time we add these sources, even if guidelines don't discuss this yet. JFW | T@lk 11:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  D-dimer 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aortic dissection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160105141210/http://tadcoalition.36beta.com/patients-and-caregivers/who-is-at-risk/ritter-rules/ to http://tadcoalition.36beta.com/patients-and-caregivers/who-is-at-risk/ritter-rules/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Friends, is it just me or anyone else feels the article should be split into type A and type B Aortic Dissection? Most sources treat them separately. Cinadon36 18:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split the article to type A and type B aortic dissection 

message: *Primal tear as the first step in Dissection pathophysiology, is still debated. Opponents highlight that at ~5% of dissections, there are no tears. See Sabiston, Chapter on Dissections, p 1220. 
*Also, same source, claims that "cystic necrosis" is a misnomer. There are no cysts neither necrosis, nowhere at aorta. Cinadon36 20:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some errors