ArticleBrazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery2022
A Clinical Analysis of Thirty-Five Patients Undergoing Aortic Reoperation.
Article in Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery, 2022. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAt present, there are few reports regarding the issue of aortic reoperation due to its complexity and high risk and individual differences among patients.
methodsFrom November 2016 to December 2017, the data from 35 cases of aortic reoperation at our institution, out of 212 consecutive aortic repairs, were reviewed. We retrospectively summarized and analyzed their surgical indications, operative data, time interval from previous aortic repair, and outcomes. The time intervals until reoperation were analyzed for differences.
resultsPatients' mean age was 40.9±14.5 years, and 25 of them were men (71.4%). The indications for reoperation were aortic valvular problem (14.3%), aneurysmal dilatation (25.7%), pseudoaneurysm formation due to anastomotic leakage (43.2%), and aortic dissection (17.1%). For patients who had underwent primarily emergency operations due to aortic dissection, the time interval until reoperation (4.8±3.2 years) was significantly shorter than that of the whole group (5.5±3.6 years, P<0.01). Among the 35 reoperations, Sun's procedure was selected for 16 patients (45.7%) with total aortic arch reconstruction. The average follow-up was 12 months (range 9-15 months). Hospital mortality was 5.7% (two patients). Among the hospital survivors there were no cases of death, rupture of residual dissection, paraplegia, or central nervous system complications during the follow-up period.
conclusionPatients with acute aortic dissection required repeat surgery significantly earlier compared to other diseases. As to reoperation strategy, we recommend Sun's procedure as the choice for extended arch reconstruction since minimal effect on overall mortality and complication rates were found.
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.