ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2026
A Type-Entry-Malperfusion-Based Propensity Score Matched Analysis Depending on Surgical Expertise in Patients Without Malperfusion Undergoing Surgery for Acute Type A Aortic Dissection.
Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2026. 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.
- Current options and recommendations for the treatment of aortic arch diseases.Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
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
objectivesThis study investigates differences in short- and mid-term outcomes in patients without malperfusion undergoing surgery for acute type A aortic dissection between specialized aortic surgeons and non-aortic surgeons.
methodsPatients who underwent surgery for acute type A aortic dissection between 2013 and 2023 defined as M0 (no malperfusion) according to the type-entry-malperfusion classification were included and divided into 2 groups according to the surgeon's expertise: aortic surgeon vs non-aortic surgeon group, whereas an aortic surgeon was defined by expertise in extensive aortic arch surgery including frozen elephant trunk implantation on a regular basis (average ≥5/year). After propensity score matching, the groups were compared in terms of intraoperative variables and outcomes including a primary combined end-point consisting of 30-day mortality and/or CT-confirmed stroke.
resultsThe matched cohort comprised 2 balanced groups with 234 patients (117 in each group). Cardiopulmonary bypass, cross-clamp and distal arrest times did not differ significantly between the groups. However, more extensive aortic surgery was performed by aortic surgeons: aortic root replacement (Bentall) (P = .007; odds ratio [OR] 1.18 [CI, 1.05-1.32]), valve-sparing root replacement (David) (P = .013; OR 1.05 [CI, 1.01-1.10]), and frozen elephant trunk implantation (P < .001; OR 1.18 (CI, 1.09-1.27]). The combined end-point of 30-day mortality and/or CT-confirmed stroke was 26% in the non-aortic surgeon vs 23% in the aortic surgeon group (P = .54; OR 0.97 [CI, 0.86-1.08]). Further clinical outcomes, including 5-year survival, did not differ significantly (P = .170).
conclusionsPatients without preoperative malperfusion undergoing surgery for ATAAD show no differences in terms of short- and mid-term outcomes between specialized aortic and non-aortic surgeons. However, more extensive aortic repair may be performed safely by specialized aortic surgeons. These results support the definition of an aortic surgeon based on experience with the frozen elephant trunk technique and may advocate for call coverage by an aortic surgeon for type A repair at high-volume centres.
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.