SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
Acute type A aortic dissection in patients with non-prior cardiac surgery vs. prior cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with prior cardiac surgery undergoing acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) are thought to have worse clinical outcomes as compared to the patients without prior cardiac surgery. Aim: To compare the safety and efficacy of ATAAD in patients with prior cardiac surgery. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar from database inception until April 2024. We included nine studies which consisted of a population of 524 in the prior surgery group and 5,249 in the non-prior surgery group. Our primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included reoperation for bleeding, myocardial infarction, stroke, renal failure, sternal wound infection, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time, cross-clamp time, hospital stay, and ICU stay. Results: Our pooled estimate shows a significantly lower rate of mortality in the non-prior cardiac surgery group compared to the prior cardiac surgery group (RR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.48-0.74). Among the secondary outcomes, the rate of reoperation for bleeding was significantly lower in the non-prior cardiac surgery group (RR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.50-0.88). Additionally, the non-prior cardiac surgery group had significantly shorter CPB time (MD = -31.06, 95% CI = -52.20 to -9.93) and cross-clamp time (MD = -21.95, 95% CI = -42.65 to -1.24). All other secondary outcomes were statistically insignificant. Conclusion: Patients with prior cardiac surgery have a higher mortality rate as compared to patients who have not undergone cardiac surgery previously. Patients with prior cardiac surgery have higher mortality and longer CPB and cross-clamp times. Tailored strategies are needed to improve outcomes in this high-risk group.
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.