ArticleJTCVS open2025
Efficacy of total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk in patients with acute type A aortic dissection.
Article in JTCVS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Frozen elephant trunk: a narrative review of global and temporal trends.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the outcomes of classical elephant trunk (CET) + total arch replacement (TAR) and frozen elephant trunk (FET) + TAR using propensity score matching analysis. Methods: Between 2012 and 2023, 370 patients who underwent TAR were divided into 2 groups based on their elephant trunk type: the CET group (153 patients; 92 men; mean age, 66 ± 13 years) and FET group (217 patients; 116 men; mean age, 64 ± 12 years). Among these patients, 124 from each group were matched using propensity scores to account for differences in patient characteristics. Results: Early outcomes, such as mortality and morbidity, were similar between the unmatched and matched cohorts. Circulatory arrest time was significantly shorter in the CET group, even after propensity score matching. In matched cohorts, the FET group had significantly higher rates of freedom from dissection-related distal aortic reoperation at 3 years and 5 years (87% and 85%, respectively, in the CET group and 96% and 96%, respectively, in the FET group; Conclusions: FET + TAR has potential as the first option for improved mid-term outcomes after surgery for type A acute 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.