ArticlePloS one2024
Surgical treatment in the chronic phase for uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe most appropriate surgical method for patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (UTBAD) in the chronic phase remains controversial. This study evaluated the outcomes of patients with UTBAD who needed aortic treatment as well as the impact of the treatment method or indication criteria on their prognosis.
methodsThis retrospective review of 106 consecutive patients with aortic events in the chronic phase who underwent initial treatment for UTBAD between 2004 and 2021 comprised three groups: 19 patients who underwent endovascular repair (TEVAR), 38 who underwent open aortic repair and the medication group that included 49 patients. Aortic events were defined as a late operation or indication for operation for dissected aorta, aortic diameter (AD) ≥ 55 mm, rapid aortic enlargement (≥5 mm/6 months), and saccular aneurysmal change. The endpoint was all-cause death. We assessed the association between treatment methods or surgical indication criteria and mortality using a Cox regression analysis.
resultsThe 5-year actuarial mortality rates were 27.1% in the TEVAR group, 19.6% in the open aortic repair group, and 38.4% in the medication group (p = 0.86). Moreover, the 5-year actuarial mortality rates in patients who had AD ≥ 55 mm were significantly higher than those patients with other surgical indication criteria (41.2% vs. 18.7%, p < 0.01). Multivariable analysis revealed a significant difference in AD ≥ 55 mm (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.38-6.02, p < 0.01) and age (HR: 1.09, 95% CI 1.05-1.13, p < 0.01).
conclusionsUnder the existing surgical indication criteria, there was no difference in mortality rates among patients with UTBAD based on their surgical treatment.
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.