ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2024
Mid-term efficacy of castor stent and in situ fenestration stent in the treatment of type B aortic dissection involving the left subclavian artery: A retrospective single-center study.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hemodynamic modeling of aortic arch aneurysm treatment using the Castor™ branched stent graft: a virtual coil embolization simulation framework.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Mid-term efficacy of castor stent and in situ fenestration stent in the treatment of type B aortic dissection involving the left subclavian artery: A retrospective single-center study.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To evaluate the midterm efficacy of the Castor stent (CS) versus in situ fenestration (ISF) for reconstructing the left subclavian artery (LSA) in patients with type B aortic dissection (TBAD). Between July 2017 and July 2022, a total of 247 patients with TBAD were enrolled. One hundred thirty-seven patients were treated using CSs (group A), while the remaining 110 patients received ISFs (group B). Data of the two groups were retrospectively analyzed. The success rates of surgery were 99.3% and 95.5% in groups A and B (p = .053), There were no deaths during hospitalization. During surgery, group B showed a longer surgical duration [68.0 (66.0, 77.0) vs. 62.0 (59.0, 66.0) min, p < .001] and intraoperative fluoroscopy time [18.0 (16.0, 20.0) vs. 16.0 (14.0, 18.0) min, p < .001] than group A. The follow-up duration was similar for both groups (44.0 vs. 43.0 months, p = .877), and no patient died. Stent-related complications were significantly lower in group A than in group B (1.5% vs. 8.4%, p = .009). Group A had fewer instances entry flow (0.7% vs. 4.7%, p = .048) and stent stenosis (0.7% vs. 2.8%, p = .206) than group B. All reintervention cases (4.7%) were from group B (p = .011). The rate of false aortic lumen thrombosis was significantly higher in group A than in group B (84.6% vs. 72.9%, p = .024). Both CSs and ISFs are evidently safe, feasible, and effective in achieving positive early outcomes in patients undergoing treatment for TBAD. Notably, at midterm follow-up, CSs appeared to be superior to ISF in terms of reducing stent-related complications and minimizing the need for reintervention.
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.