ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2023
The effect of postoperative anticoagulation on acute aortic dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aortic remodeling after thoracic endovascular repair combined with anti-thrombotic therapy for acute type B aortic dissection.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Observational
- Acute cardiac dysfunction and rapid descending aortic expansion following surgery for acute Stanford type A aortic dissection: a case report.European heart journal. Case reports · 2026Article
- Incidence of Venous Thromboembolism After Surgery for Acute Stanford Type A Aortic Dissection.Cureus · 2026Article
- Rescue bare-metal stent placement restoring multilevel perfusion in acute type B aortic dissection: a case report.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aim: The evolution of the false lumen after the repair of acute aortic dissection has been linked to numerous adverse clinical outcomes, including increased late mortality and a higher risk of reoperation. Despite the widespread use of chronic anticoagulation in patients who have undergone repair for acute aortic dissection, the effects of this therapy on false lumen evolution and its subsequent consequences are yet to be fully understood. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the impact of postoperative anticoagulation on patients with acute aortic dissection. Methods: In PubMed, Cochrane Libraries, Embase, and Web of Science, we performed a systematic review of nonrandomized studies, comparing outcomes with postoperative anticoagulation vs. non-anticoagulation on aortic dissection. We investigated the status of false lumen (FL), aorta-related death, aortic reintervention, and perioperative stroke in aortic dissection patients with anticoagulation and non-anticoagulation. Results: After screening 527 articles, seven non-randomized studies were selected, including a total of 2,122 patients with aortic dissection. Out of these patients, 496 received postoperative anticoagulation while 1,626 served as controls. Meta-analyses of 7 studies revealed significantly higher FL patency in Stanford type A aortic dissection (TAAD) postoperative anticoagulation with an OR of 1.82 (95% CI: 1.22 to 2.71; Conclusions: Postoperative anticoagulation was associated with higher FL patency in Stanford type A aortic dissection patients. However, there was no significant difference between the anticoagulation and non-anticoagulation groups in terms of aorta-related death, aortic reintervention, and perioperative stroke.
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.