ArticleJVS-vascular insights2024
Need for and update on clinical trials for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection.
Article in JVS-vascular insights, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Iliac artery involvement determines optimal therapy in acute uncomplicated type B aortic dissection.JTCVS structural and endovascular · 2026Article
- Changes in aortic centerline length and curvature predict aortic diameter growth in chronic type B aortic dissection.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Management and outcomes of thoracic dissection in older adults.Seminars in vascular surgery · 2025Review
- Endovascular Treatment for Aortic Diseases: Intercontinental Disparities.Current cardiology reports · 2025Review
- Through the gap: a case series on managing Type B aortic dissection with multiple lumens and tears.Future cardiology · 2025Article
- Long-term outcomes of initial thoracic endovascular repair versus medical therapy in acute uncomplicated type B aortic dissection: real-world evidence from a nationwide claims database in Japan - a retrospective cohort study.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The mainstay of management for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection is currently optimal medical therapy, targeting blood pressure and heart rate, along with serial imaging. There is a paucity of data that informs whether early intervention with thoracic endografting in this group of patients will promote aortic remodeling and better long-term outcomes. Investigations to date, including the Investigation of Stent Grafts in Aortic Dissection (INSTEAD), INSTEAD-XL, and Acute Dissection: Stent Graft or Best Medical Therapy (ADSORB) studies, have compared thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with optimal medical therapy in patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection but have not shown a benefit for TEVAR conclusively. We discuss three major new randomized trials, which will recruit concurrently in Scandinavia (the Scandinavian trial of uncomplicated aortic dissection therapy [SUNDAY] trial), in the United States (the IMPRoving outcomes in vascular DisEase - aortic dissection [IMPROVE-AD] trial) and the United Kingdom (the Early aortic repair in patients needing endovascular surgery for type B aortic dissection [EARNEST] trial), which promise to provide conclusive, level 1 evidence to decipher whether early TEVAR in this cohort of patients in beneficial.
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.