ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2025
Validation of the German registry of acute aortic dissection type A score for predicting 30-day mortality after acute type A aortic dissection surgery in a single Japanese aortic centre.
Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Aorta Is One Organ; Our Response Is Not: A Global Case for Systems Redesign in Acute Aortic Syndromes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Risks and outcomes of extubation failure after acute stanford Type A aortic dissection: a retrospective cohort study based on propensity score matching.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Preoperative MELD score variants and survival trajectories following in acute type A aortic dissection with follow‑up up to three years.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- The GERAADA Risk Score for Early Mortality After Surgery for Acute Type A Aortic Dissection: An External Validation in the Dutch Setting.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study evaluated the applicability of the German Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection Type A (GERAADA) score in predicting 30-day mortality in Japanese patients undergoing surgery for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) and compared its predictive performance with that of the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II (EuroSCORE II).
methodsThis single-centre retrospective study involved 154 patients who underwent emergency surgery for ATAAD between January 2019 and April 2024. The GERAADA and EuroSCORE II were calculated for each patient. Predictive accuracy for 30-day mortality was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). A multivariate logistic regression identified independent predictors of mortality, and long-term outcomes were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.
resultsThe 30-day mortality rate was 11.0%. The GERAADA score showed an AUC of 0.80, indicating good discriminatory ability, while the EuroSCORE II demonstrated moderate performance with an AUC of 0.67 (P = 0.07). The GERAADA score significantly overestimated mortality in this cohort, whereas the EuroSCORE II underestimated it. Independent predictors of mortality included the use of catecholamines at referral. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a 1-year survival rate of 79.4% with an AUC of 0.72, demonstrating the GERAADA score's utility as a predictor of long-term survival.
conclusionsThe GERAADA score provides accurate predictions of 30-day mortality in Japanese patients undergoing ATAAD surgery, comparable to the EuroSCORE II. This score demonstrates robust predictive ability for short- and long-term outcomes and may serve as a practical tool for risk stratification in ATAAD surgery.
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.