ReviewSurgery today2016
Cerebral malperfusion in acute aortic dissection.
Review in Surgery today, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Two surgical strategies (early carotid reperfusion vs. Central aortic repair-first) of acute type a aortic dissection complicated with cerebral malperfusion syndrome: a meta-analysis and systematic review.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Surgical treatment of type A acute aortic dissection with cerebral malperfusion: a systematic review.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Guidelines for the use of cerebral oximetry by near-infrared spectroscopy in cardiovascular anesthesia: a report by the cerebrospinal Division of the Academic Committee of the Japanese Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists (JSCVA).Journal of anesthesia · 2019Guideline
- Article
- The Construction of a Risk Prediction Model Based on Neural Network for Pre-operative Acute Ischemic Stroke in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection Patients.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- Preoperative Imaging Risk Findings for Postoperative New Stroke in Patients With Acute Type A Aortic Dissection.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2020Article
- Identification of CTA-Based Predictive Findings for Temporary and Permanent Neurological Dysfunction after Repair in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Acute type a aortic dissection associated with a sporting activity.Surgery today · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cerebral malperfusion in association with acute type A aortic dissection is uncommon but can have a considerable effect on the outcome of treatment. Successful treatment requires the individual and effective removal of each of the factors associated with malperfusion. In addition to the conventional surgical procedures, endovascular treatment has become an option for restoring perfusion. However, artificial perfusion and/or surgical procedures can lead to new malperfusion, which is not necessarily apparent to surgeons and which is difficult to predict. Thus, a number of modalities need to be applied to monitoring the current status of perfusion to enable timely treatment. Since each of the diagnostic modalities has its merits and demerits, one should use them effectively while being mindful of the pitfalls. In addition, a delay in the diagnosis in the pre-hospital stage is an important determinant of the surgical outcomes of aortic dissection. Portable echocardiography, which has been recently developed, may be useful for improving this situation. However, an early diagnosis largely depends on the physician's awareness and basic echocardiography skills. Surgeons should make general physicians aware of this message.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27430488What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.