Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40921550›Full record

ReviewSeminars in vascular surgery2025

Management and outcomes of thoracic dissection in older adults.

Blake E Murphy, Sara L Zettervall

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Seminars in vascular surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Blake E MurphyDivision of Vascular Surgery, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 358811, Seattle, WA 98195.
Sara L ZettervallDivision of Vascular Surgery, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 358811, Seattle, WA 98195. Electronic address: szetterv@uw.edu.

Funding

Surgery Research Training ProgramT32GM121290 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI GRANT E O'KEEFE · 2017 to 2026
$2.8M
NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM121290
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aortic dissection carries significant morbidity and mortality, particularly with involvement of the ascending aorta. The estimated prevalence of aortic dissection in the general population is between 2.0 and 3.5 per 100,000 people; the risk of which increases with age and underlying risk factors, such as hypertension, long-term tobacco use, and genetic aortopathy. The older adult population continues to increase exponentially, with people older than 65 years accounting for nearly 20% of the total population. The unique challenges associated with treating older patients include consideration of reduced physiologic reserve, increased comorbidity profiles, and clinical frailty. Although surgical repair and endovascular repair have notable survival benefits in the setting of acute aortic dissection, older patients are more frequently offered medical management alone. More recently, the proliferation and evolution of endovascular therapies has offered novel and minimally invasive treatment options for older patients with acute and chronic post-dissection thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. In this article, the underlying risk factors, pathophysiology, and clinical decision making for patients with acute dissection are described. In addition, the considerations for treatment of both acute and chronic aortic dissection in this unique patient population are outlined.

Indexed as

Aortic Aneurysm, ThoracicAortic DissectionBlood Vessel Prosthesis ImplantationCardiovascular AgentsEndovascular ProceduresAcute DiseaseAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsChronic DiseaseClinical Decision-MakingFemaleHumansMaleRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsCardiovascular AgentsAortic dissectionOlder adultThoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm

Identifiers

PMID40921550
PMCPMC12423026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.