ArticleAorta (Stamford, Conn.)2022
Risk Prediction Models for Management of Patients following Acute Aortic Dissection.
Article in Aorta (Stamford, Conn.), 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Risk prediction of adverse outcomes post aortic dissection is dependet not only on the postdissection-associated clinical factors but on the very foundation of the risk factors that lead up to the dissection itself. There are various such risk factors existing prior to the dissection which impact the postdissection outcomes. In this paper, we review the literature to critically analyze various risk models, burdened by their significant limitations, that attempt to stratify risk prediction based on postdissection patient characteristics. We further review several studies across the literature that investigate the diverse set of predissection risk factors impacting postdissection outcomes. We have discussed and appraised numerous studies which attempt to develop a tool to stratify risk prediction by incorporating the impacts of different factors: malperfusion, blood biochemistry, and perioperative outcomes. The well-validated Penn classification has clearly demonstrated in the literature the significant impact that malperfusion has on adverse outcomes postdissection. Other risk models, already severely hindered by their limitations, lack such validation. We further discuss additional alluded risk factors, including the impact of predissection aortic size, the syndromic and nonsyndromic natures of dissection, and the effects of family history and genetics, which collectively contribute to the risk of adverse outcomes postdissection and prognosis. To achieve the goal of a true risk model, there remains the vital need for appreciation and appropriate consideration for all such aforementioned factors, from before and after the dissection, as discussed in this paper. By being able to incorporate the value of true risk prediction for a patient into the decision-making framework, it will allow a new page of precision medical decision-making to be written.
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.