ArticleEuropean journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery2025
The optimal annual case volume for acute type A aortic dissection surgery in relation to long-term outcomes.
Article in European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery, 2025. 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.
- From routine to rescue: Higher elective aortic surgery volume is associated with improved outcomes after acute type A aortic dissection repair.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Valve-sparing Aortic Root Replacement: Defining High-volume Centres Using Prospective Data.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2026Article
- Impact of an On-Call Specialist Aortic Rota Implementation in Acute Type a Aortic Dissection on Outcomes and Repair Complexity: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPrevious analyses of the volume-outcome relationship have focused on short-term outcomes such as early mortality. The current study aims to update a novel statistical methodology, facilitating the evaluation of the relation between procedural volume and time-to-event outcomes such as long-term survival, using surgery for acute type A aortic dissection as an illustrative example.
methodsThis study employed an existing dataset of type A dissection outcomes, retrieved from literature. Studies were included when reporting on annual case load and long-term survival, which served as the primary outcome of interest. Individual patient data were reconstructed from the included studies, and a hazard ratio was determined per study in relation to overall survival, after which the calculated hazard ratios were incorporated in a restricted cubic-spline model, facilitating the application of the elbow method.
resultsFifty-two studies were included (n = 14 878 patients), with a median follow-up of 5 years. One-, 3-, 5- and 10-year survival of the overall cohort were 82% [95% confidence interval (CI) 82-83%], 79% (95% CI 78-80%), 74% (95% CI 74-75%) and 60% (95% CI 59-62%), respectively. A significant non-linear volume-outcome relation for long-term survival was observed in both the unadjusted and adjusted analyses (P = 0.030 and P = 0.002), with an optimal annual case load of 32 cases/year (95% CI 31-33).
conclusionsBased on the available data, these findings imply that the annual case volume to achieve optimal long-term survival is located near a procedural volume of 32 cases/year. After accrual of more annual procedures, long-term survival may no longer significantly improve any further.
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.