ArticleNature communications2025
Propensity score matching analysis of valve-sparing versus aortic root replacement in type A aortic dissection patients.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. 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.
- A Novel Selective Sinus Reinforcement Technique for Acute Type A Aortic Dissection Involving the Aortic Root.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Management strategies for acute type A aortic dissection during pregnancy: a single-center retrospective experience.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
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
This study compared long-term survival and reintervention rates between Valve-Sparing Root Replacement (VSRR, n = 244) and Aortic Root Replacement (ARR, n = 499) in 743 patients undergoing Type A acute aortic dissection (AAD), given the lack of prospective comparative data. Multivariable analysis is identifying advanced age, high Body Mass Index (BMI), Marfan syndrome, severe aortic regurgitation, bicuspid aortic valve, increased aortic root diameter, and reduced aortic cross-clamp time (ACC) as significant factors associated with ARR. After Propensity Score Matching (PSM), VSRR is showing significantly higher 5-year survival rates than ARR (80.2% vs. 64.1%, P = 0.001), validated by Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW) analysis. Reintervention rates are being found comparable, with endocarditis more prevalent in ARR and aortic regurgitation in VSRR. Subgroup analysis indicated that patients aged less than 60 years and those with a BMI greater than 24 in the VSRR group exhibited significantly improved survival probabilities compared to the ARR group. These findings support the wider utilization of valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) in appropriately selected patients, highlighting its potential advantages for suitable candidates.
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.