ArticleJTCVS open2023
Biomechanical properties of the aortic root are distinct from those of the ascending aorta in both normal and aneurysmal states.
Article in JTCVS open, 2023. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computed tomography-derived elastic modulus as a noninvasive marker of aortic wall integrity: Correlation with histopathology in the ascending aorta.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Effects of aerobic exercise training on cerebral pulsatile hemodynamics in middle-aged adults with elevated blood pressure/stage 1 hypertension.Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985) · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although aneurysms of the ascending aorta and the aortic root are treated similarly in clinical guidelines, how biomechanical properties differ between these 2 segments of aorta is poorly defined. Methods: Biomechanical testing was performed on tissue collected from the aortic root (normal = 11, aneurysm = 51) and the ascending aorta (normal = 21, aneurysm = 76). Energy loss, tangent modulus of elasticity, and delamination strength were evaluated. These biomechanical properties were then compared between (1) normal ascending and normal root tissue, (2) normal and aneurysmal root tissue, (3) normal and aneurysmal ascending tissue, and (4) aneurysmal root and aneurysmal ascending tissue. Propensity score matching was performed to further compare aneurysmal root and aneurysmal ascending aortic tissue. Clinical and biomechanical variables associated with decreased delamination strength in the aortic root were evaluated. Results: The normal aortic root demonstrated greater viscoelastic behavior (energy loss 0.08 [0.06, 0.10] vs 0.05 [0.04, 0.06], Conclusions: The normal aortic root was found to have distinct biomechanical properties compared with the ascending aorta. When aneurysms form in the aortic root, there is less strength against delamination, without other biomechanical changes such as increased energy loss observed in aneurysmal ascending aortas. Age and hypertension were associated decreased aortic wall strength in the aortic root, whereas diameter had no such association.
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.