ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024
Cerebral protection in acute type A aortic dissection surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a scoring system for the involvement of supra-aortic vessel in patients with type A aortic dissection.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Direct Innominate Artery Cannulation for Thoracic Aortic Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Advances and Innovation in Acute Type a Aortic Dissection.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) still challenges physicians and warrants emergent surgical management. Two main methods to reduce cerebrovascular events in ATAAD surgeries are antegrade cerebral perfusion (ACP) and retrograde cerebral perfusion (RCP). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of ACP and RCP methods during the ATAAD surgery. Methods: In this study, we searched the databases until March 29 Results: Twenty-six studies met the eligibility criteria. All studies had a low risk of bias as they were evaluated by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool. Eventually, we included 26 studies in the current meta-analysis, and a total of 13,039 patients were evaluated. The calculated risk ratio (RR) for permanent neurologic dysfunction (PND) in ACP and RCP comparison was RR =1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI): (0.84, 1.80) (P value =0.2662), and in unilateral ACP (uACP) and bilateral ACP (bACP) was RR =1.2786, 95% CI: (0.7931, 2.0615) (P value =0.3132). When comparing the ACP-RCP and uACP-bACP groups, significant differences were found between ACP-RCP the groups in terms of circulatory arrest time (P value =0.0017 and P value =0.1995, respectively), cardiopulmonary bypass time (P value =0.5312 and P value =0.7460, respectively), intensive care unit (ICU)-stay time (P value =0.2654 and P value =0.0099), crossclamp time (P value =0.6228 and P value =0.2625), and operative mortality (P value =0.9368 and P value =0.2398, respectively), and when comparing the u-ACP and b-ACP groups for transient neurologic deficit (TND), an RR of 1.32, 95% CI: (1.05, 1.67) (P value =0.0199). The results showed high heterogeneity and no publication bias. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the ACP and RCP are both safe and acceptable techniques to use in emergent settings. The uACP technique is equivalent to bACP in terms of PND and mortality, however, uACP is preferred over bACP in terms of TND.
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.