cardiac tamponade due to ascending aortic dissection
AI-generated summary
A 71-year-old woman presented to the ED with sudden-onset epigastric pain requiring morphine. Despite clinical features concerning for acute aortic dissection (severe stabbing chest pain radiating to back, relieved by leaning forward, systolic ejection murmur, ECG changes), she was diagnosed with gastritis and discharged. The critical error was the radiologist's failure to recognise displacement of mural calcification on non-contrast CT indicating ascending aortic dissection—a finding acknowledged as 'obvious' by independent reviewers. The radiologist should have also warned that non-contrast imaging was inadequate to exclude dissection. Mrs Rogers died from cardiac tamponade that night. Immediate surgery (Bentall's procedure) offered 50-60% survival despite significant risks. This death was preventable through accurate radiological reporting and appropriate clinical escalation based on the clinical presentation.
AI-generated summary and tagging — may contain inaccuracies; refer to original finding for legal purposes. Report an inaccuracy.
failure of radiologist to recognise signs of aortic dissection on CT scan
failure to warn clinicians that non-contrast CT was inadequate to exclude aortic dissection
misdiagnosis of gastritis despite clinical presentation more consistent with acute cardiovascular event
patient discharged home despite severe pain requiring high-dose morphine and clinical signs concerning for aortic dissection
over-reliance on negative radiological report
inadequate consideration of differential diagnoses at point of discharge
Coroner's recommendations
The Launceston General Hospital should undertake a review of the competencies of its radiological staff with a view to putting in place, if deemed necessary, processes for their updated training and the proper supervision or monitoring of their work.
This page reproduces or summarises information from publicly available findings published by Australian coroners' courts. Coronial is an independent educational resource and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or acting on behalf of any coronial court or government body.
Content may be incomplete, reformatted, or summarised. Some material may have been redacted or restricted by court order or privacy requirements. Always refer to the original court publication for the authoritative record.
Copyright in original materials remains with the relevant government jurisdiction. AI-generated summaries and tagging are for educational purposes only, may contain inaccuracies, and must not be treated as legal documents. We welcome feedback for correction — report an inaccuracy here.