ArticleGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2024
Outcomes of ascending aorta and partial arch replacement with entry resection for DeBakey type I acute aortic dissection.
Article in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Initial Surgical Experience of a Novel Frozen Elephant Trunk Without Distal Stent for Acute Type A Aortic Dissection.Annals of thoracic surgery short reports · 2026Article
- The Management of the Aortic Arch in Type A Aortic Dissection: Replace, Repair with the AMDS, or Leave for Another Day?Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study investigated early and late outcomes between ascending aorta/partial arch replacement and total arch replacement with entry resection in DeBakey type I acute aortic dissection (DIAAD) repair. METHODS AND
resultsThis study included 98 patients who underwent DIAAD repair from January 2005 to December 2020. Seventy-four patients underwent ascending aorta and partial arch replacement with entry resection (Non-TAR group), and 24 underwent total arch replacement with entry resection (TAR group). The mean follow-up period was 4.8 ± 3.2 years. The follow-up rate was 92.3%. The mean age in the Non-TAR and TAR groups was 68.8 ± 10.4 years and 61.6 ± 13.7 years, respectively (P = 0.046). No difference in preoperative shock and malperfusion syndrome was observed between the groups. Hospital death was observed in 5.4% and 12.5% of the Non-TAR and TAR groups, respectively (P = 0.241). Postoperative permanent neurologic deficits and temporary hemodialysis were more frequently seen in the TAR compared to the Non-TAR group (P = 0.03 and 0.003, respectively). The 5-year survival rates were 95.1% ± 3.4% and 89.2% ± 7.2% in the Non-TAR and TAR groups, respectively (Log-rank P = 0.603). Freedom from downstream aorta-related reinterventions at 5 years was 87.8% ± 4.5% and 64.1% ± 11.0% in the Non-TAR and TAR groups, respectively (Log-rank P = 0.007). Three patients in each group underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair for residual aortic dissection.
conclusionsEarly and late outcomes in the Non-TAR group were satisfactory compared to those in the TAR group. Entry resection with graft replacement remains a standard approach in DIAAD repair.
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.