Background-The modern imaging techniques of transesophageal echocardiography, CT, and MRI are reported to have up to 100% sensitivity in detecting the classic class of aortic dissection; however, anecdotal reports of patient deaths from a missed diagnosis of subtle classes of variants are increasingly being noted. Methods and Results-In a series of 181 consecutive patients who had ascending or aortic arch repairs, 9 patients (5%) had subtle aortic dissection not diagnosed preoperatively. All preoperative studies in patients with missed aortic dissection were reviewed in detail. All 9 patients (2 with Marfan syndrome, 1 with Takayasu's disease) with undiagnosed aortic dissection had undergone Ն3 imaging techniques, with the finding of ascending aortic dilatation (4.7 to 9 cm) in all 9 and significant aortic valve regurgitation in 7. In 6 patients, an eccentric ascending aortic bulge was present but not diagnostic of aortic dissection on aortography. At operation, aortic dissection tears were limited in extent and involved the intima without extensive undermining of the intima or an intimal "flap." Eight had composite valve grafts inserted, and all survived. Of the larger series of 181 patients, 98% (179 of 181) were 30-day survivors. Conclusions-In

To evaluate the safety and cost of outpatient cardiac catheterization, we conducted a randomized trial at three hospitals of outpatient (n = 192) as compared with inpatient (n = 189) cardiac catheterization in low-risk patients. Outpatients had the following complication rates as compared with inpatients: hematoma, 12 versus 8.5 percent; numbness or weakness of extremity, 0.5 versus 1.6 percent; cold or blue extremity, 1.6 versus 1.1 percent; and acute myocardial infarction, 1.6 versus 0.5 percent. None of these differences were statistically significant. No deaths or strokes occurred in either group. Twenty-three patients (12 percent) assigned to the outpatient group required hospitalization because of complications of catheterization. In the outpatient group, the relative risk for hematoma was 1.42 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.77 to 2.29), and the relative risk for myocardial infarction within one week was 2.95 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.3 to 28.1). There were no significant differences between the two groups in whether they resumed normal activities or in the rates of rehospitalization within one week of the procedure. Total catheterization-related charges per patient were $679 lower for outpatients, with a savings in total hospital charges (including charges for subsequent therapeutic procedures) of $885 per patient. We conclude that elective cardiac catheterization as an outpatient procedure for selected patients is feasible and safe. Given the small size of our sample, however, we urge caution in interpreting these findings, since they do not exclude a small increase in complication rates with outpatient cardiac catheterization.

No abstract

No abstract