ArticleJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2025
Early vs. Late Endovascular Extension Following Frozen Elephant Trunk Procedure: Effects on Clinical Outcomes and Aortic Remodeling.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique was introduced as a possible single-stage procedure for treating aortic arch pathologies. However, up to a third of patients are reported to need subsequent completion (extension). This retrospective analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of early (within 30 days; EC group) versus late (>30 days; LC group) endovascular completion with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients treated with FET.
methodsA single-center, retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients for the period between June 2017 and December 2023 who underwent FET and received endovascular extension was conducted. Indications for endovascular extension were aneurysms of the descending aorta, aneurysmal progress, endoleak, malperfusion, distal stent-induced new entry (dSINE), and aortic rupture.
resultsA total of 37 of 232 FET patients received endovascular extension (15.9%). Average age at the time of TEVAR was 63.3 ± 10.3 years. There was an increase in the maximum total aortic diameter post-FET from 40.8 ± 9 mm to 45.1 ± 14 mm prior to TEVAR. Only 14 patients (37.8%) had the desired complete occlusion of the false lumen or aneurysm prior to extension; 23 (62.2%) still had relevant perfusion of the false lumen or aneurysm. The EC and LC groups were defined by time between FET and TEVAR: a mean of 4.8 ± 5.2 days in the EC group and 18.4 ± 18 months in the LC group. The EC group had markedly more complex procedures, reflected in intensive care (10.7 ± 6.9 vs. 0.1 ± 0.3 days,
conclusionsFollowing aortic arch repair using FET, there is still a need for second-stage repair in 16% of patients. Endovascular completion post-FET is safe and feasible with a technical success rate of 100%, but early completion is associated with greater morbidity and mortality. TEVAR extension surgery may be better delayed, if possible, until after recovery from the hybrid arch repair.
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.