ArticleInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2026
The 20-year outcome of ascending aorta replacement and total arch replacement comparison in DeBakey type I acute aortic dissection.
Article in International journal of surgery (London, England), 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe mortality rate of acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection increases by 1%-2% every hour after the first presentation if left untreated. However, the long-term outcomes of ascending aorta replacement (AR) versus total arch replacement (TAR) remain unclear. This study evaluated and compared the long-term outcomes between AR and TAR. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included 398 patients with acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection who underwent surgical repair between March 2002 and October 2024. Patient data were extracted from medical records, and patients were stratified into two groups (AR and TAR groups) according to the surgical procedure. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was applied for further analysis.
resultsHigher incidences of acute kidney injury (32.3% vs 20.6%, P = 0.029), new-onset stroke (9.5% vs 3.7%, P = 0.016), and bleeding (30.1% vs 16.2%, P = 0.007) and longer hospital stays (34.4 vs 25.7 days, P = 0.042) were observed in the TAR group than in the AR group immediately postoperation. In long-term follow-up, no significant differences were observed between the groups regarding reintervention or mortality events. In addition, the risk of relative mortality associated with TAR was more apparent in patients older than 65 years.
conclusionNo significant differences were observed between TAR and AR in terms of 30-day mortality, reintervention events, aorta-related mortality, or overall mortality under the tear-oriented policy for acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection. Notably, older patients undergoing TAR had poorer overall survival outcomes than did those undergoing AR, particularly among patients older than 65 years.
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.