ArticleInteractive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2021
What are the endovascular options and outcomes for repair of ascending aortic or aortic arch pathology?
Article in Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was 'in patients with ascending aortic or aortic arch disease what are the outcomes with endovascular repair in terms of survival, complications and reintervention?' Altogether 585 papers were found using the reported search, of which 9 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. We found that the endovascular operative techniques with the greatest evidence were ascending aortic chimney grafts (AACs), branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair (bTEVAR) aortic grafts and fenestrated TEVAR (fTEVAR) aortic grafts. The best evidence available were small case-series or retrospective cohort studies (n < 100), with 1 systematic review, at a short follow-up period (range 0-5 years). Intraoperatively, these techniques have a high technical success rate (84-100%). We found rates of endoleak comparable between AAC (7.4-16%) and bTEVAR/fenestrated TEVAR (11.1-21.4%). Stroke rates are higher in bTEVAR (3.1-42% vs 1-26% in AACs), attributed to more proximal pathology and technically challenging procedures. Following the immediate postoperative period, the 30-day mortality is 0-10.8% and patency is 97-100%. Stroke and reintervention rates remain higher in the bTEVAR group (3.1-42.0% and 0.5-33.3%) compared to the AAC group (1.0-11.1% and 6.7-16.7%). The 3- and 5-year survival ranges from 59% to 90%, but is driven by non-aortic pathology in a high-risk population; 3-year freedom from aortic death is 93-97%. Patency is 97-100% at up to 3 years, conformation and supra-aortic occlusions thereafter remain unknown. We conclude that AACs, bTEVARs and fenestrated TEVARs are safe endovascular options in high-risk elective patients, with results comparable to open or hybrid repair. They remain unverified in acute settings or in patients fit for open intervention.
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.