Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40765895›Full record

ArticleBMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies2025

Long-term outcomes of initial thoracic endovascular repair versus medical therapy in acute uncomplicated type B aortic dissection: real-world evidence from a nationwide claims database in Japan - a retrospective cohort study.

Yuki Kimura, Hiroshi Ohtsu, Naohiro Yonemoto, Nobuyoshi Azuma, Kazuhiro Sase

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Observational
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

5 authors.

Yuki KimuraClinical Pharmacology and Regulatory Science, Juntendo University School of Medicine Graduate School of Medicine, Bunkyo-ku, Japan.
Hiroshi OhtsuClinical Pharmacology and Regulatory Science, Juntendo University School of Medicine Graduate School of Medicine, Bunkyo-ku, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3261-8828
Naohiro YonemotoDepartment of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toyama, Toyama, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3637-2095
Nobuyoshi AzumaDivision of Vascular, Respiratory and Surgical Oncology, Asahikawa Medical University, Hokkaido, Japan.
Kazuhiro SaseClinical Pharmacology and Regulatory Science, Juntendo University School of Medicine Graduate School of Medicine, Bunkyo-ku, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2714-304X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the long-term outcomes of initial thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) versus initial medical therapy (iMT) in patients with acute uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (uTBAD), using real-world evidence from a nationwide claims database in Japan. This study aligns with stage 4 of the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term Study (IDEAL) framework for surgical innovation. Design: A retrospective cohort study using propensity score matching (PSM) to balance baseline characteristics. Setting: Japanese nationwide health insurance claims database, between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2023. Participants: Among 40 229 cases with tentative codes for aortic dissection (International Classification of Diseases-10: I71.0), 4995 met all eligibility criteria for acute uTBAD. Among these patients, 96 underwent TEVAR in the subacute phase (15-90 days post diagnosis), while 4899 were managed with iMT. After PSM, 96 TEVAR cases were matched to 480 iMT cases in a 1:5 ratio. Main outcome measures: The primary outcomes were aorta-related events and all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome was the frequency of follow-up CT imaging every year. Results: After PSM, the baseline characteristics of both groups were balanced. Median age was 56 years (IQR: 50-62 years) in both groups, and follow-up duration was similar (TEVAR: 31 months; iMT: 28 months, p=0.84).At 60 months, Kaplan-Meier estimates showed an aorta-related event rate of 21.9% (95% CI: 12.6% to 36.4%) for TEVAR and 19.9% (95% CI: 15.6% to 25.2%) for iMT (p=0.99).All-cause mortality was 4.4% (95% CI: 1.4% to 13.6%) for TEVAR and 6.6% (95% CI: 4.0% to 10.6%) for iMT (p=0.70). No significant differences were observed. Conclusions: While aorta-related events accumulated steadily in the crude iMT group, no survival benefit was observed for subacute TEVAR. These findings support ongoing randomized controlled trials and show the utility of claims-based analyses in IDEAL Stage 4.

Indexed as

Cohort StudyDevice SurveillanceOutcomes ResearchReal World EvidenceVascular Devices

Identifiers

PMID40765895
PMCPMC12323521

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.