ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2024
Contemporary comparative surgical outcomes of type A aortic dissection in US and China: an analysis of the national inpatient sample database and a Chinese multi-institutional registry.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 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.
- The Effects of Surface Gastrointestinal Electrical Stimulation on Gastrointestinal Function Recovery in Patients After Acute Type A Aortic Dissection Open-Heart Surgery: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Interpretable prognostic modeling for long-term survival of Type A aortic dissection patients using support vector machine algorithm.European journal of medical research · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the contemporary comparative inpatient prognosis among US and Chinese patients with type A aortic dissection (TAAD).
methodsData from Chinese multi-institutional TAAD registry and the US National Inpatient Sample databases were analyzed. We used multivariable logistic regression models to compare in-hospital mortality and perioperative complication rates between the US and China. Length of stay and overall costs were fitted with quantile regression models. Independent prognostic factors associated with post-operative survival were assessed via Cox proportional hazards models.
resultsAmong 3,121 eligible TAAD patients, 1,073 were from China (25.0% female; mean ± SD age, 53.9 ± 12.4) and 2,048 were from the US (31.2% female; mean ± SE age, 59.8 ± 0.3). During the study period, the in-hospital mortality rates in China and the US were 15.5% and 13.3%, yet the difference was insignificant after adjustment (aOR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.69-1.97). While there was no significant difference in overall perioperative complications (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.52-2.18), the patterns of complications differed between two cohorts. While Chinese TAAD patients experienced significantly longer duration of hospitalization (median difference, + 10.4 days; 95% CI, 9.2-11.5), the US TAAD cohort had significantly greater overall hospitalization costs (49.9; 95% CI, 55.4-44.5, in 1000 USD).
conclusionsNotwithstanding significant differences in demographic and clinical characteristics, TAAD patients from China and the US demonstrated comparable in-hospital mortality and overall perioperative complication rates. Future initiatives should focus on expanding surgical eligibility to the elderly Chinese TAAD patients and optimizing the duration of hospitalization without undermining meaningful clinical outcomes.
trial registrationKY20220425-05, April 5th 25 2022.
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.