SynthesisFuture cardiology2025
Long term outcomes of thoracic endovascular repair versus optimal medical therapy for uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Future cardiology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this article is to compare the long-term efficacy of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) versus Optimal Medical Therapy (OMT) in reducing mortality among adult patients with uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection (uSTBAD).
methodsAn electronic search of PubMed, Cochrane Central and Google Scholar was conducted for studies comparing TEVAR with OMT for mortality in adult patients with uSTBAD. Relevant outcomes, including mortality, aortic rupture, re-intervention, retrograde type A dissection, myocardial infarction and stroke were analyzed and presented as risk ratios (RRs) along with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant in all cases. All statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager.
resultsA total of 12 studies were included (n = 25,605). Meta-analysis favored TEVAR over OMT for all-cause mortality (RR = 0.57, 95% CI: [0.43-0.76]; P < 0.01). However, there was no significant difference considering the morbidity, which included endovascular re-intervention (RR = 0.76, 95%CI: [0.46-1.28]; P = 0.30), aortic rupture (RR = 0.38; 95%CI: [0.14-1.05]; P = 0.06), retrograde type A dissection (RR = 1.00; 95%CI: [0.78-1.28]; P = 1.00), myocardial infarction (RR = 0.85; 95% CI: [0.51-1.42]; P = 0.53). However, a significant increase in risk of stroke in TEVAR group was observed (RR = 1.56; 95%CI: [1.30-1.89]; P < 0.01).
conclusionWe report that while there were similar morbidity outcomes for uSTBAD treated with TEVAR and OMT, overall mortality was significantly improved with TEVAR. Further large-scale studies are needed to elucidate the differences in outcomes between the two treatment options. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero identifier is CRD42024566452.
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.