ArticleJTCVS techniques2024
Total endovascular arch repair: Initial experience in Bologna.
Article in JTCVS techniques, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neurological Complications After Thoracic Endovascular Repair (TEVAR): A Narrative Review of the Incidence, Mechanisms and Strategies for Prevention and Management.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Treatment of innominate artery during thoracic endovascular aortic repair is associated with higher stroke rate.JTCVS structural and endovascular · 2025Article
- Commentary: TEVAR or not TEVAR: That is the question.JTCVS techniques · 2024Article
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
Objectives: In the last few years, fenestrated, branched, or scalloped custom grafts have become available for aortic arch repair. Open surgery is the gold standard, but arch thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is indicated for high-risk patients. We focused on total endovascular aortic arch replacement with a zone 0 or zone 1 landing zone to describe its short- and long-term outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent arch TEVAR with a zone 0 or zone 1 landing zone at our center. We then performed a Kaplan-Meier analysis for survival and freedom from reintervention at follow-up. Results: From May 2017 to November 2023, 15 patients underwent elective arch TEVAR, having been deemed unfit for open surgery. Mean age was 74.7 ± 7.8 years. The most frequent procedure was fenestrated endovascular aortic repair with a left carotid-subclavian bypass (LCSB) (6; 40%), followed by double-branched graft with LCSB (5; 33.3%) and triple-branched graft (2; 13.3%) and scalloped graft with LCSB (2; 13.3%). There was 1 in-hospital death (6.7%). Perioperative stroke occurred in 2 cases (13.3%). Mean follow-up (FU) time was 16.4 ± 15.1 months. There were 3 deaths at FU, all for noncardiovascular causes, and 1 stroke at FU. One patient required further stenting of the brachiocephalic trunk for a type III endoleak. Survival at 12 months was 87.5% and freedom from reintervention was 85.7%. Conclusions: Total endovascular aortic arch repair with custom-made prosthesis is a safe and effective procedure in patients with prohibitive surgical risk. Stroke remains the main complication with significant rates.
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.