ArticleEJVES short reports2018
Challenging Current Conservative Management of Uncomplicated Acute Type B Aortic Dissections.
Article in EJVES short reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic Impact of Blood Pressure Change Patterns on Patients With Aortic Dissection After Admission.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Prescreening and treatment of aortic dissection through an analysis of infinite-dimension data.BioData mining · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDespite weak evidence, current treatment guidelines for uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissection (uATBAD) consistently recommend intensive and rapid lowering of systolic blood pressure and heart rate. REPORT: The case of a 62 year old man with uATBAD, who was treated according to guidelines, is presented. Owing to an unknown chronic occlusion of the left carotid artery combined with intensive hypotensive treatment, the patient developed a cerebral infarct. DISCUSSION: The case illustrates a severe complication of the widely accepted management of uATBAD. This case, along with scrutiny of guidelines and the evidence behind these guidelines, provoke questions regarding the rationale of current conservative management, and whether it should be challenged with alternative strategies employing a more cautious blood pressure regimen. It also highlights the importance of evaluating the vessels of the supra-aortic trunk when determining the extent of the dissection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.