Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40447586›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Presentation, treatment, and outcomes in patients with spontaneous isolated celiac artery dissection.

Xinyang Zhang, Feng Zhu, Liqiang Zhang, Chao Guo, Chunting Li, Dan Shang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Xinyang Zhang *Department of Vascular Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1277 JieFang Avenue, Wuhan, 430022, Hubei Province, China.
Feng Zhu *Department of Vascular Surgery, Hubei Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Wuhan, China.
Liqiang ZhangDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1277 JieFang Avenue, Wuhan, 430022, Hubei Province, China.
Chao GuoDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1277 JieFang Avenue, Wuhan, 430022, Hubei Province, China.
Chunting LiDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Hubei Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Wuhan, China.
Dan ShangDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1277 JieFang Avenue, Wuhan, 430022, Hubei Province, China. danshang@hust.edu.cn.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81700425
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spontaneous isolated celiac artery dissection (SICAD) is a rare condition, with its natural history and outcomes have not been thoroughly studied. The aim of this study is to review our institution's experience in evaluating, treating, and determining outcomes for patients with SICAD. A retrospective review was conducted on 76 patients who presented with SICAD between January 2010 and July 2022. The clinical manifestations, initial radiological findings, methods of treatment and follow-up computed tomography were reviewed, and patients were subsequently contacted for assessment of ongoing symptoms. In this study, a total of 76 patients diagnosed with SICAD were collected, comprising 67 males (88.2%) and 9 females (11.8%), with an average age of 52.8 ± 8.7 years (range 26-71 years). In this study, 61 patients (80.3%) exhibited symptoms, while 15 patients (19.7%) were asymptomatic. The main clinical manifestations in patients with symptoms included epigastric pain, lower abdominal pain, generalized abdominal pain, flank pain, vomiting. The mean angle between celiac trunk and aorta in symptomatic patients was 57.78 ± 14.94°, and 59.65 ± 20.11° in asymptomatic patients. Of the 76 patients, 27 underwent endovascular treatment due to refractory pain or aneurysmal dilatation, utilizing techniques such as bare stent placement, bare stent implantation combined with coil embolization, or covered stent implantation. However, 2 patients experienced failure in the endovascular intervention due to issues with the guide wire reaching the true cavity and challenges in inserting the long sheath behind the celiac artery. The remaining 49 patients were managed conservatively. Conservative treatment measures included fasting, pain management, fluid and nutritional support, strict blood pressure control, and improvement of circulation. Within the conservative group, only one patient (1.3%) experienced recurrence of abdominal pain, with subsequent CT revealing slight dilation of the celiac trunk dissection. However, symptoms improved following rehospitalization and conservative therapy, with no recurrence observed post-discharge. Notably, both endovascular and conservative approaches demonstrated symptomatic improvement in all patients. The symptoms of SICAD may not be influenced by the angle between celiac trunk and aorta. Conservative treatment is effective in more than half of the patients. Endovascular treatment has more favorable outcomes in achieving complete remodeling compared to conservative treatment.

Indexed as

Aortic DissectionCeliac ArteryAdultAgedEndovascular ProceduresFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedTreatment OutcomeAngle between celiac trunk and aortaClinical characteristicComputed tomographyOutcomesSpontaneous celiac artery dissectionTreatment

Identifiers

PMID40447586
PMCPMC12125323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.