ArticleBMC surgery2021
Long-term results of type B aortic dissection patients with tumor after endovascular repair or optimal medical therapy: a single-center and retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC 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, 2 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effect of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for acute Type B aortic has been confirmed, However, when patients with malignant disease suffer from acute type B aortic dissection (ATBAD), the effect of TEVAR intervention is still unclear.
methodsATBAD patients were identified from electronic medical records between 2009 and 2019. The 5 year overall and aortic-disease free survival rates were analyzed and compared between the two groups.
resultsOf the 40 enrolled patients, 27 (67.5%) received TEVAR and 13 (32.5%) received OMT. The baseline characteristics of the two groups were not significantly different. Kaplan‒Meier survival curve showed that the 5 year overall survival and 5 year aortic-disease free survival of the TEVAR group were better than those of the OMT group. The Cox proportional hazard model with unadjusted risk showed an 83.0% decrease in 5 year overall mortality (HR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05-0.56) and a lower aortic-disease related risk (HR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.02-0.39) in TEVAR group compared to OMT group. After adjusted for age, gender, smoking, drinking and comorbidities (diabetes mellitus, hypertension and coronary artery diseases), the hazard ratio of 5 year overall mortality was 78.0% lower (HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.06.0.81) and the risk of aortic-disease related mortality was 93.0% lower (HR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.61) in TEVAR group compared to OMT group. In the cohort stratified by age, sex, the risk of the 5 year overall or aortic-disease related mortality in TEVAR group was relatively reduced compared to OMT group.
conclusionsCompared to OMT, TEVAR improves the 5 year overall and aortic-disease free survival rates in the cohort of ATBAD patients with a single type of malignant tumors.
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.