Trial reportJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2025
One-stop hybrid versus conventional surgery for acute type A aortic dissection: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of cardiothoracic 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the clinical efficacy and prognostic impact of one-stop hybrid surgery in patients diagnosed with Stanford type A aortic dissection, comparing it with conventional surgical approaches aortic arch replacement plus stented elephant trunk (Sun's procedure).
methodsIn this prospective, randomized controlled trial, a cohort of 140 patients with acute Stanford type A aortic dissection (TAAD) was prospectively enrolled. Patients were randomized 1:1 into two groups based on treatment modality: the Conventional Group (n = 70), which underwent conventional total arch replacement with stented elephant trunk (Sun's procedure) utilizing deep hypothermic circulatory arrest, and the Hybrid Group (n = 70), which received one-stop hybrid surgery (total arch replacement with a standard four-branched graft and retrograde placement of one or two stent grafts into the descending aorta, performed under moderate hypothermia).
resultsBaseline demographic and clinical characteristics were largely comparable between the two groups (P > 0.05), although patients in the Hybrid Group were slightly older (P = 0.003). The Hybrid group exhibited significantly reduced operative times (P < 0.001), cardiopulmonary bypass durations (P < 0.001), aortic cross-clamp times (P < 0.001), and ventilator dependency periods (P < 0.001) compared to the Conventional group. Patients in the Hybrid Group also had shorter ICU and hospital stays (P < 0.001). Postoperative complication rates were markedly lower in the Hybrid group, with significant reductions in pulmonary infections (P = 0.009), severe hypoxemia (P = 0.032), stroke (P = 0.045), and reoperation for bleeding (P = 0.038). Postoperative contrast-enhanced Computed Tomography (CTA) assessments at 1 and 3 months post-surgery revealed superior aortic remodeling in the Hybrid group, as evidenced by significantly lower aortic morphology scores (1 month: P < 0.001; 3 months: P < 0.001). Furthermore, the Hybrid group demonstrated a higher 30-day survival rate (91.4% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.024), alongside reduced incidences of endoleak (P = 0.197) and cardiovascular events (P = 0.127).
conclusionOne-stop hybrid surgery represents a safe and effective therapeutic strategy for selected patients with Stanford type A aortic dissection, offering superior perioperative outcomes, reduced postoperative morbidity, enhanced short-term survival, and improved quality of life compared to conventional Sun's procedure.
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.