ArticleJTCVS open2025
Total aortic arch replacement versus proximal aortic repair for acute type a aortic dissection: A single-center 30-year experience.
Article in JTCVS open, 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.
- Redo total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk for patients with previous proximal aortic replacement for acute type A dissection.JTCVS open · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Optimal surgical management of the aortic arch for acute type A aortic dissection remains contentious. We assessed clinical outcomes after total arch replacement and proximal aortic repair (ascending aortic ± hemiarch replacement) for acute type A aortic dissection. Methods: All patients surgically treated for acute type A aortic dissection at our institution between 1992 and 2021 were included. Study end points included all-cause mortality, distal aortic reintervention, stroke, and malperfusion syndrome. Results: A total of 357 patients underwent surgery for acute type A aortic dissection; 76 (21.3%) received total arch replacement, and 281 (78.7%) received proximal aortic repair. The frequency of total arch replacement increased over time ( Conclusions: In-hospital mortality after acute type A aortic dissection decreased over time despite the implementation of an aggressive approach to the dissected aortic arch. Long-term survival appears favorable after total arch replacement, but remains contingent on early postoperative survival. The surgical approach should be based on the patient's clinical presentation, while considering total arch replacement in patients at risk of aortic arch reinterventions.
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.