ArticlePloS one2022
Individualized prediction of risk of ascending aortic syndromes.
Article in PloS one, 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, 1 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAlthough ascending aortic diameter changes acutely after dissection, recommendation for prophylactic surgery of thoracic aortic aneurysms rely on data from dissected aortas. In this case-control study we aim to identify risk markers for acute and chronic aortic syndromes of the ascending aorta (ACAS-AA). Furthermore, to develop a predictive model for ACAS-AA.
methodsWe collected data of 188 cases of ACAS-AA and 376 controls standardized to age- and sex of the background population. Medical history and CT-derived aortic morphology were collected. For the dependent outcome ACAS-AA, potential independent risk factors were identified by univariate logistic regression and confirmed in multivariate logistic regression. As post-dissection tubular ascending aortic diameter is prone to expand, this factor was not included in the first model. The individual calculated adjusted odds ratios were then used in ROC-curve analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the model. To test the influence of post-ACAS-AA tubular ascending aortic diameter, this was added to the model.
resultsThe following risk factors were identified as independent risk factors for ACAS-AA in multivariate analysis: bicuspid aortic valve (OR 20.41, p = 0.03), renal insufficiency (OR 2.9, p<0.01), infrarenal abdominal aortic diameter (OR 1.08, p<0.01), left common carotid artery diameter (OR 1.40, p<0.01) and aortic width (OR 1.07, p<0.01). Area under the curve was 0.88 (p<0.01). Adding post-ACAS-AA tubular ascending aortic diameter to the model, negated the association of bicuspid aortic valve, renal insufficiency, and left common carotid artery diameter. Area under the curve changed to 0.98 (p<0.01).
conclusionsA high performing predictive model for ACAS-AA, free of ascending aortic diameter, can be achieved. Furthermore, we have identified abdominal aortic ectasia as an independent risk factor of ACAS-AA. Integration of potential biomarkers and morphologic variables, derived from undissected aortas, would probably improve the model.
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.