Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38249874›Full record

ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2023

An early single-center experience with the Relay double inner-branch arch endograft.

Cristóbal Iglesias Iglesias, Carmen González Canga, Francisco Abril Ramiro, Alba Alonso Pastor, Francisco Álvarez Marcos, Manuel Alonso Pérez

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The Endovascular Treatment of Aortic Arch Pathologies.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2026
    Review
  2. The Present and Future of Zone 0 Endovascular Arch Reconstruction.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cristóbal Iglesias IglesiasDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias (HUCA), Oviedo, Spain.
Carmen González CangaDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias (HUCA), Oviedo, Spain.
Francisco Abril RamiroDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias (HUCA), Oviedo, Spain.
Alba Alonso PastorDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias (HUCA), Oviedo, Spain.
Francisco Álvarez MarcosDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias (HUCA), Oviedo, Spain.
Manuel Alonso PérezDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias (HUCA), Oviedo, Spain.
Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias · ESInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Principado de Asturias · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Open surgery remains the gold standard technique for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies, although endovascular techniques offer a new opportunity for patients deemed unfit for open repair. This paper assesses the early outcomes of patients treated with a double inner-branched arch endograft in a single, tertiary-care institution. Methods: All consecutive cases of elective endovascular arch repair from 2016 to 2022 were included in a prospective database. All procedures were performed using the custom-made Relay Results: Twelve patients were treated during the study period [mean age 74±7 years, 100% male, 58% American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) risk ≥3]. Treated conditions included aneurysms (n=9), one pseudoaneurysm, one aortic ulcer and a type IA endoleak. The technical success rate was 100%. Early complications included respiratory insufficiency (n=3; 25%), stroke (n=1; 8.3%), acute coronary syndrome needing coronary stenting (n=1; 8.3%), and one perioperative death (n=1; 8.3%) secondary to an intracranial bleeding after coronary stenting. One patient required early reintervention due to retroperitoneal iliac access bleeding (n=1; 8.3%). During a median follow-up of 15.5 (range, 0-44) months, four patients suffered neurological events (two of them of cardioembolic origin), one reintervention was needed (subclavian anastomosis pseudoaneurysm), and a type IB endoleak was diagnosed. Overall mortality was of 17% (n=2), with an 83% overall survival at 2 years. The aortic-related death-free survival was 100%. Conclusions: Endovascular treatment of aortic arch pathology is feasible and shows promising early mortality and stroke rates in high-risk candidates. The main short and midterm goal should be minimizing neurological complications. A longer follow-up is mandatory to determine the effectiveness of the technique and to detect device related complications.

Indexed as

aortic aneurysmAortic archendovascular repairhybrid repairinner branch device

Identifiers

PMID38249874
PMCPMC10797385
OpenAlexW4390349984

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.