ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Case Report: Maintaining a balance between vascular access patency and stable dissection status in a hemodialysis patient with unrepaired type A aortic dissection.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Type A aortic dissection (AD) is a lethal situation with high mortality within short time after onset. We present here a rare hemodialysis patient whose condition was comorbid with unrepaired type A AD. The challenge we face is whether low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) should be used during dialysis. Case presentation: A 72-year-old man with a history of hemodialysis for 2 years and 7 months sought medical attention due to thrombosis of the dialysis catheter. He had been diagnosed with an unrepaired type A aortic dissection (involving the aortic root, the ascending aorta, the aortic arch, the descending aorta, the abdominal aorta, the left common iliac artery, and the femoral artery) for more than 5 years. LMWH was not given during the previous dialysis process because of concerns about the rupture of the dissection. The lesion was salvaged via urokinase thrombolysis. However, the anticoagulant-free dialysis pattern occasionally caused dialyzer clotting and further increased the risk of catheter dysfunction. The patient repeatedly experienced dysfunction of the catheter in the following 8 months, with 2 episodes resolved via thrombolysis and 2 episodes replaced with new catheters. Finally, LMWH was used for each dialysis session to prevent thrombosis, with the dosage gradually increasing from 1,000 units to 2,000 units. The dosage of 2,000 units could support sufficient 4-hour dialysis for each session. Twenty-five months have passed since then, the patient has not experienced any further occlusion of the catheter, and the aortic dissection has not shown obvious changes (neither obvious expansion nor rupture). Conclusion: Reducing the dosage of LMWH during hemodialysis is a feasible solution to maintain a balance between hemodialysis access patency and stable dissection status in this particular patient.
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.