ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2023
A novel classification, management and long-term outcomes of coronary artery involvement in acute aortic dissection.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of coronary artery involvement on mortality in patients with acute type A aortic dissection: results from a large-scale cohort study.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2025Article
- Under the Radar: Back Pain and Acute Kidney Injury as Harbingers of Type A Aortic Dissection.Cureus · 2025Article
- Short- and mid-term outcomes of surgical repair of acute type A aortic dissection and concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Abrupt left coronary artery malperfusion secondary to acute type A aortic dissection after weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass: a case report.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo introduce a new and simple classification and management of coronary artery involvement in aortic dissection and report results.
methodsCoronary artery involvement was classified into two types according to the integrity of coronary intima: simple lesion (type S) and complex lesion (type C). Complex lesions were treated by CABG and simple lesions were treated by ostial repair or reimplantation. Data were collected and analyzed retrospectively.
resultsFrom January 2010 to December 2019, 267 consecutive patients were enrolled in the study, and among them complex lesions occurred in 27 patients (11.1%) and simple lesions was found in 240 patients(89.9%). Eleven untreated vessels with simple lesion were found to be involved again in the same operation and treated by CABG. The two type groups had comparable operative mortality (type S vs. type C, 9.6% vs. 18.5%, P = 0.28). 221 patients received follow-up with a median duration of 52 months. The overall survival rates at 1, 5, and 10 years postoperatively were 88.9%, 85.7%, and 79.8% in type S group and 79.2%, 79.2%, and 79.2% in type C group, respectively (P = 0.47). For the patients who received CABG and survived at discharge, radiographic follow-up with a median duration of 28 (IQR 7-55.5) months showed the freedom from occlusion of vein graft at 1, 5, and 10 years postoperatively were 87.5%, 70.0%, 28.0%.
conclusionsAccording to the new classification, two types of lesions could be treated by corresponding methods with satisfactory early and long-term results. Unrepaired coronary artery was at a risk of re-involvement. Vein graft onto arteries without atherosclerosis still had a high occlusion rate.
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.