Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34527312›Full record

ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2021

Conventional open versus hybrid aortic arch repair: a meta-analysis of propensity-matched studies.

Yong Zhan, Hannah Kooperkamp, Serena Lofftus, Daniel McGrath, Masashi Kawabori, Frederick Y Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Yong ZhanDivision of Cardiac Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Hannah KooperkampDivision of Cardiac Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Serena LofftusDivision of Cardiac Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Daniel McGrathDivision of Cardiac Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Masashi KawaboriDivision of Cardiac Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Frederick Y ChenDivision of Cardiac Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComparison of conventional (open) surgical versus hybrid aortic arch repair remains debatable. While the majority of previous comparative studies including meta-analyses contained primarily risk-unadjusted cohorts, those focusing on propensity-matched comparisons were limited by their small sample size. We aimed to compare outcomes of these two approaches through an up-to-date search and meta-analysis of the best evidence currently available in the literature.

methodsThe PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library from inception to September 2019 were searched to identify articles reporting propensity-score matching data on open versus hybrid aortic arch repair. Patients' baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were extracted from the articles and pooled for analysis. Heterogeneity and biases were assessed among the included studies.

resultsFive studies, including a total of 378 patients (189 pairs), were included in the study. The two groups were similar in patients' baseline characteristics. Stroke rate favoured the open group [2.1% versus 14.3%, OR 0.18 (0.07, 0.46), P=0.0004, I

conclusionsOpen and hybrid repairs do not offer equivalent outcomes. Compared with hybrid aortic arch repair, conventional surgical aortic repair could be associated with favourable outcomes including postoperative stroke. Hybrid repair does not appear to provide better survival. Operative approaches should be carefully selected in treating aortic arch pathology.

Indexed as

Aortic archdebranchinghybridmeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID34527312
PMCPMC8411138

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.