ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024
Short- and mid-term outcomes of the aortic root repair versus root replacement in acute type A aortic dissection.
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. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In patients with acute acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) requiring emergency surgery, the use of aortic root repair or replacement remains a topic of controversy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the early and mid-term clinical outcomes after aortic root repair or replacement, and to provide a theoretical basis for such patients. Methods: The study included 442 consecutive patients with ATAAD who underwent aortic root repair [n=227, repair group (RG)] or the Bentall procedure [n=215, Bentall group (BG)] at our hospital between December 2018 and December 2021. The indications for aortic root replacement were aortic root sinus diameter of ≥4.5 cm, severe sinotubular junction involvement, unrepairable aortic valvulopathy, severe coronary ostium involvement, connective tissue disease, intimal tear at the aortic root, or dissection involving three aortic sinuses. The primary outcome was the survival rate and incidence of reoperation between the two groups. Results: The in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates in the RG and BG were 10.1% and 11.6%, respectively. The two groups had no significant difference (P=0.613). Multivariate logistic analysis showed that aortic root surgery did not influence the in-hospital or 30-day mortality rates. The mean follow-up time was 36.8±11.6 months (median, 33.4 months; interquartile range, 27.0-45.2 months). The 5-year survival rates for the RG and BG were 88.1% and 85.9%, respectively (P=0.650). During the follow-up period, only one patient in the BG group underwent proximal aortic reoperation. Conclusions: Continuous improvement of aortic root repair technology and identification of its indications may help reduce reoperation rates. Aortic root repair can be considered safe and feasible.
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.