SynthesisReviews in cardiovascular medicine2023
A Systematic Review on PETTICOAT and STABILISE Techniques for the Management of Complicated Acute Type B Aortic Dissection.
Synthesis in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Rate of Postoperative Complications in Complicated Acute, and Subacute Type B Aortic Dissections after TEVAR vs. PETTICOAT Procedures: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Pooled it
- CT-Centered Multimodality Imaging of Arterial Wall Fragility in Acute Aortic Syndromes: A Narrative Review of Imaging Markers and Clinical Implications.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- Off-the-shelf multi-branch endograft for the treatment of chronic type B aortic dissection with prior thoracic endovascular aortic repair.Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Extended downstream endovascular management has been applied in acute complicated type B aortic dissection (acTBAD), distally to standard thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), using bare metal stents, with or without lamina disruption, using balloon inflation. The aim of this systematic review was to assess technical success, 30-day mortality, and mortality during follow-up in patients with acTBAD managed with the Provisional Extension To Induce Complete Attachment (PETTICOAT) or stent-assisted balloon-induced intimal disruption and relamination (STABILISE) technique. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement was followed. A search of the English literature, via Ovid, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases, until 30th August 2022, was executed. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies (published between 2000-2022), with Results: Thirteen studies were considered eligible, twelve in the quantitative analysis. In total, 418 patients with acTBAD managed with the PETTICOAT (83%) or STABILISE (17%) technique were included. Technical success ranged between 97-100%, 99% for the PETTICOAT and 100% for the STABILISE sub-cohort. Thirty-day mortality was estimated at 3.7% (12/321), 1.4% for the STABILISE and 4.4% for the PETTICOAT technique. All studies reported the mean available follow-up which was estimated at 20 months (range 3-168 months), 22 months (mean value) for the PETTICOAT and 17 months (mean value) for the STABILISE technique. Twenty-three patients died during follow-up, with an estimated mortality rate at 5.7% for the total cohort. The mortality during follow-up was 0% for the STABILISE and 7.0% for the PETTICOAT approach. Conclusions: Both, the PETTICOAT and STABILISE techniques presented less than 4% perioperative mortality in patients with acTBAD with high technical success rate. The mid-term mortality rate was at 6%. However, the heterogeneity in the available studies' highlights the need for further prospective studies, including larger volume and longer follow-up.
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.