ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022
Clinical characteristics and outcomes of Stanford type B aortic intramural hematoma: A single centre experience.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Validation of the Systemic Inflammatory Response Index-Based Nomogram for Predicting Short-Term Adverse Events in Patients With Acute Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Intramural Hematoma.Journal of inflammation research · 2025Article
- Clinical and imaging differences between Stanford Type B intramural hematoma-like lesions and classic aortic dissection.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the clinical characteristics of Stanford type B aortic intramural hematoma (IMH) and Stanford type B aortic dissection (AD), and to identify the differences between thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and medical management (MM) in the Stanford type B IMH patients. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted in patients treated between January 2015 and December 2016. The clinical characteristics and CT images of patients with type B IMH and type B AD were compared, and the clinical characteristics and CT images of patients in the type B IMH group who were treated with TEVAR and MM were compared. Results: A total of 176 patients were included in this study, including 62 patients of type B IMH and 114 patients of type B AD. Five patients died in the IMH group and three in the AD group. The proximal hematoma or entry tear in both groups was mainly located in the descending aorta, and the proportion of the iliac artery involved in the AD group was significantly higher than that in the IMH group (31.6% vs. 8.1% Conclusion: In the diagnosis of IMH, patients' symptoms and high-risk signs of CTA should be paid attention to. TEVAR therapy should be actively considered on the basis of effective medical management when there are intima lesions (ULP/PAU), increased aortic diameter and hematoma thickness, extensive hematoma involvement, and pleural effusion.
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.