Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36013228›Full record

ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2022

Type 1A Endoleak after TEVAR in the Aortic Arch: A Review of the Literature.

Lucia Scurto, Nicolò Peluso, Federico Pascucci, Simona Sica, Francesca De Nigris, Marco Filipponi, Fabrizio Minelli, Tommaso Donati, Giovanni Tinelli, Yamume Tshomba

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Anesthetic Considerations for Endovascular Repair of the Thoracic Aorta.Seminars in cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lucia ScurtoUnit of Vascular Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli I.R.C.C.S., Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Roma, Italy.
Nicolò PelusoUnit of Vascular Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli I.R.C.C.S., Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Roma, Italy.
Federico PascucciUnit of Vascular Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli I.R.C.C.S., Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Roma, Italy.
Simona SicaUnit of Vascular Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli I.R.C.C.S., Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Roma, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4459-9687
Francesca De NigrisUnit of Vascular Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli I.R.C.C.S., 00168 Roma, Italy.
Marco FilipponiASL Roma 2, 00168 Roma, Italy.
Fabrizio MinelliUnit of Vascular Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli I.R.C.C.S., Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Roma, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6555-6574
Tommaso DonatiUnit of Vascular Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli I.R.C.C.S., 00168 Roma, Italy.
Giovanni TinelliUnit of Vascular Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli I.R.C.C.S., Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Roma, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2212-3226
Yamume TshombaUnit of Vascular Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli I.R.C.C.S., Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Roma, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7304-7553
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITAgostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITASL Roma · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aortic arch repair is a challenging intervention. Open surgical repair is still considered the gold standard, but in high-risk patients, it is not always a reasonable option, making endovascular approaches an enticing, when not the only available, alternative for treatment. The strategies more commonly adopted are surgical supra-aortic trunk (SAT) rerouting followed by deployment of a standard thoracic endoprosthesis, chimney techniques, custom-made scalloped, fenestrated, and branched devices, and in situ or physician-modified fenestrations. If we excluded techniques involving SAT rerouting where the arch anatomy is surgically modified in order to make deployment in the aortic arch of a standard thoracic endoprosthesis possible, in the other techniques, one or more SATs are incorporated in the thoracic endoprosthesis. In these cases, no matter what solution is adopted, because of the morphology of the aorta at this level, achieving an ideal sealing is extremely difficult, and endovascular treatments of the arch are burdened by an increased risk of type IA endoleaks. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched. We identified 1277 records. After reading titles, abstracts, and full texts, we excluded 1231 records. Exclusion criteria were low-quality evidence, abstracts, case reports, conference presentations, reviews, editorials, and expert opinions. A total of 48 studies were included, for a total of 3114 patients. A type IA endoleak occurred in 248 patients (7.7%) with a mean incidence of 18.8% in chimney procedures, 4.8% and 3%, respectively, in fenestrated and branched devices, and 2.2% in in situ fenestration. We excluded from our analysis scalloped technology that is used when the target vessel originates from a healthy landing zone and represents a different anatomical setting. Type IA endoleaks are a concern with all types of endovascular aortic arch repair, and they can compromise the outcomes of the procedure. The rate of type IA endoleaks appears to be significantly higher in chimney procedures. In order to maximize sealing, whenever possible, endovascular repair of the arch should be achieved with custom-made fenestrated devices. However, chimney configurations are still a valuable solution particularly in the emergency setting, although in such a procedure, to guarantee accurate postoperative management and follow-up, an imaging protocol could be useful.

Indexed as

aortic archbranched graftchimneyendoleakfenestrated graftin situ fenestrationTEVAR

Identifiers

PMID36013228
PMCPMC9410239
OpenAlexW4289833166

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.