Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Survey of current policy regarding the recognition and management of acute aortic syndrome in Great Britain
  1. Salma Alawiye1,
  2. Graham Cooper2,
  3. Catherine Fowler2,
  4. Matthew J Reed1
  1. 1 Emergency Medicine Research Group Edinburgh (EMERGE), Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
  2. 2 The Aortic Dissection Charitable Trust, Chesterfield, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor Matthew J Reed, Emergency Medicine Research Group Edinburgh (EMERGE), Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK; mattreed{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is a life-threatening condition constituting acute aortic dissection (AAD), intramural haematoma and penetrating aortic ulcer.1 2 The diagnosis of AAS is plagued by uncertainty,3 up to 38% of cases are missed at first ED presentation and up to 25% are diagnosed 24 hours after ED presentation.4 The Aortic Dissection Detection Risk Score5 and the Canadian Clinical Practice Guideline4 are clinical decision tools available to aid progression to the definitive investigation, CT angiography of the aorta.

A recent UK parliamentary debate on AAS6 discussed the importance of ensuring patient pathways are in place in all hospitals and eliminating regional variations in AAS care. To establish a baseline, we designed and distributed a survey to all acute NHS trusts and health boards across Great Britain (where TADCT is a registered charity) to qualify current policy regarding recognition and management of AAS.

On 14 April 2022, we submitted a Freedom of Information (FoI) request via email to 143 NHS trusts in …

View Full Text


  • Handling editor Alex Novak

  • Twitter @AorticDissectCT, @AorticDissectCT, @mattreed73

  • Contributors GC and CF were involved in the study concept, methodology and coordinating data collection. SA and MJR were involved in data analysis and writing the initial draft of the paper. All authors contributed to the final draft of the paper and all have seen the final submitted version.

  • Funding MJR is supported by an NHS Research Scotland Career Researcher Clinician award.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.