ArticleInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2026
Endovascular versus medical management of Type B intramural hematoma: a multicenter retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the efficacy of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and the endovascular intervention window in the treatment of patients with Type B aortic intramural hematoma (TBIMH).
methodsThis retrospective multicenter cohort study recruited 502 patients with TBIMH from four medical centers in China between 2017 and 2024. The patients were categorized into two groups: the medical management (MM) group ( n = 167) and the TEVAR group ( n = 335). Propensity score matching (PSM) generated 155 matched pairs. Subgroup analysis was conducted within the TEVAR group to compare the survival outcomes associated with three timing windows for TEVAR. The Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were employed for survival analysis.
resultsBefore PSM, the TEVAR group exhibited higher incidences of comorbidities [e.g., pleural effusion, penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer (PAU), and ulcer-like projection (ULP)] and greater anatomical severity (hematoma thickness and extent) than the MM group. After matching, the two groups were well-balanced in all demographic and clinical variables. The adjusted analysis revealed that TEVAR was associated with lower all-cause mortality (9.68% vs 18.71%, P = 0.034) and improved survival (Log-rank, P = 0.036) compared to MM. A subgroup analysis further indicated that the timing of intervention matters; the hyperacute-phase TEVAR (≤48 hours) was associated with the highest mortality rate (18.18%), whereas survival rates were similar for procedures performed during the acute (3-14 days) and subacute (>14 days) phases.
conclusionOur study demonstrated that TEVAR was associated with improved survival outcomes compared to MM, including in patients with severe anatomical features. An exploratory analysis suggests that avoiding TEVAR within the hyperacute phase (≤48 hours) might improve outcomes in specific high-risk groups. These findings require confirmation through prospective randomized controlled trials before they can inform definitive clinical practice.
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.