Observational studyInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2025
Outcomes following extended thoracic endovascular aortic repair for Type B aortic dissection from the global registry for endovascular aortic treatment.
Observational study 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 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.
- Descending Thoracic Aortic Diameter Is a Predictor of Poor Outcome After Endovascular Aortic Repair.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2026Observational
- Mortality trends and disparities associated with aortic aneurysm and aortic dissection in the United States from 1999 to 2023: a CDC WONDER database analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 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
Abstract
objectivesThis study evaluated the short- to longer-term safety and efficacy of extended thoracic endovascular aortic repair for Type B aortic dissection.
methodsWe identified acute and subacute Type B dissection between 2010 and 2016 in the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment. We stratified the population based on treatment extent: 'non-extended' (1 stent graft deployed), 'extended' (>1 stent graft deployed). Our primary outcomes were in-hospital spinal cord ischaemia and mortality. Secondarily, we evaluated procedure-related complications (endoleak, migration, fracture, compression, reinterventions), sac dynamics, rupture, and all-cause mortality at 1 and 5 years. Sensitivity analysis was performed in patients without prior aortic procedures.
resultsOf 170 procedures, 78 (46%) were extended (median 2 [range 2-5] stent-grafts). Extended and non-extended treatment had similar rates of complicated presentations (53% vs 64%; P = 0.13). Compared with non-extended treatment, extended treatment had similar in-hospital rates of spinal cord ischaemia (2.6% vs 2.2%; P = 1) and mortality (2.6% vs 2.2%, P = 1). Additionally, extended treatment had not statistically different sac expansion rates, (1 year: 14% vs 23%, P =0.80; 5 years: 16% vs 32%, P=0.29) and rupture risk (1 year: 1.3% vs 3.3%, P = 0.63), similar procedure-related complications (endoleak, migration, fracture, compression, reinterventions; all P > 0.05) and all-cause mortality (1 year: 10% vs 7.6%, P=0.54; 5 years: 19% vs 21%, P=0.82). All outcomes remained similar on sensitivity analysis.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that extended treatment for Type B aortic dissection may be associated with similar procedure-related risks and complications. Future larger studies are needed to define who might benefit from an extended treatment and further optimize patient-specific treatment for aortic dissection.
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.