ArticleScientific reports2024
Clinical predictive value of the age, creatinine, and ejection fraction score in patients in acute type A aortic dissection after total arch replacement.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Preoperative Inflammatory Risk Markers and Postoperative Creatinine and Lactate as Mortality Markers After Surgery for Stanford Type A Acute Aortic Dissection.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a novel bleeding risk prediction tool for aspirin users with a low body mass index.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
The age, creatinine, and ejection fraction (ACEF) score has been accepted as a predictor of poor outcome in elective operations. This study aimed to investigate the predictive value of ACEF score in acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD) patients after total arch replacement. A total of 227 AAAD patients from July 2021 and June 2022 were enrolled and divided into Tertiles 1 (ACEF ≤ 0.73), Tertiles 2 (0.73 < ACEF ≤ 0.95), and Tertiles 3 (ACEF > 0.95). Using inverse probability processing weighting (IPTW) to balance the baseline characteristics and compare the outcomes. Cox logistic regression was used to further evaluate the survival prediction ability of ACEF score. The in-hospital mortality was 9.8%. After IPTW, in the baseline characteristics reached an equilibrium, a higher ACEF score before operation still associated with higher in-hospital mortality. After 1 year follow-up, 184 patients (90.6%) survival. Multivariable analysis revealed that ACEF score (adjusted hazard ratio 1.68; 95% confidence interval 1.34-4.91; p = 0.036) and binary ACEF score (adjusted HR 2.26; 95% CI 1.82-6.20; p < 0.001) was independently associated with 1-year survival. In addition, net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated differentiation improvement (IDI) verified that the ACEF score and binary ACEF score is an accurate predictive tool in clinical settings. In conclusions, ACEF score could be considered as a useful tool to risk stratification in patients with AAAD before operation in daily clinical work.
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.