ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2023
Aortic growth after arch reconstruction with patch augmentation: a 2-decade experience.
Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Preclinical Validation of a Patient-Specific Patch-Planning Workflow for Congenital Cardiovascular Reconstruction.Annals of biomedical engineering · 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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesOptimal aortic sizing during aortic arch reconstruction remains unknown. Negative effects of arch under- or oversizing are well-published. We aimed to characterize longitudinal aortic growth after patch-augmented arch reconstruction to identify the initial reconstructed arch size that results in normal mid-term arch dimensions.
methodsSingle-centre, retrospective review of infants undergoing Damus-Kaye-Stansel (DKS) or non-DKS patch-augmented aortic arch reconstruction between 2000 and 2021. Ascending aorta, proximal and distal transverse arch, aortic isthmus (AIsth) and descending aorta dimensions were measured in postoperative echocardiograms (<3 months from index operation) and cross-sectional imaging (>12 months). Longitudinal changes to aortic dimensions and z-scores were analysed. Secondary outcomes included reintervention, valve and ventricular function, mortality and transplantation.
resultsFifty-four patients (16 DKS, 38 non-DKS) were included. At 6.3 [2.2, 12.0]-year follow-up, all aortic segments grew significantly in both groups, while z-scores remained unchanged except for non-DKS proximal and distal transverse arch z-scores, which significantly increased (P < 0.05 each). When stratified by initial postoperative z-score (z < -1, -1 ≤ z ≤ 1, z > 1), non-DKS patients with initial AIsth z-score <-1 had a final z-score significantly smaller than both the targeted z-score zero (P = 0.014) and final z-score in a group with initial postoperative z-score ±1 (P = 0.009). Valve and ventricular function remained stable. Eighteen patients required reintervention, 1 died and 1 underwent transplant.
conclusionsOver mid-term follow-up, aortic growth after arch reconstruction with patch augmentation was proportional when repaired to normal z-score dimensions, aside from proximal transverse arch, which disproportionately dilated. AIsth undersizing prevailed mid-term and trended towards a higher reintervention rate. Initial reconstruction between z-score 0 and +1 resulted in maintenance of that z-score size at mid-term follow-up. Overall, it is crucial to achieve targeted aortic sizing at index operation to maintain appropriate aortic dimensions over time and reduce reintervention risk with specific focus on the AIsth.
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.