ReviewJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2026
The Present and Future of Zone 0 Endovascular Arch Reconstruction.
Review in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 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
Thoracic aortic pathology involving the aortic arch is most commonly treated with open total arch replacement. However, open surgery is still associated with significant risk of mortality and morbidity, particularly in the elderly, patients with high-risk comorbidities, and those with previous cardiac surgery. Multiple endovascular approaches to enable zone 0 arch reconstruction have been developed, including custom-made, physician-modified, and off-the-shelf fenestrated/branched endografts. The initial experiences of this approach have been plagued by high incidence of stroke; although improvements have been made over the past decade, it remains suboptimal. Several factors contribute to this stagnation, including limited descriptive studies with small sample sizes, heterogeneous patient populations, varied techniques, and lack of data granularity and standardization. These limitations reduce the ability to analyze factors that could improve patient selection, device design, and procedural techniques. In addition, consistent follow-ups have not been reported, and the long-term outcome of these interventions are unknown. To address these issues, a randomized controlled trial of open versus endovascular arch repair or multicenter registry with standardized data reporting, follow-up protocol, and sufficient sample size would be needed. High-quality data will help identify patient clinical or anatomical features as well as procedural factors that can improve outcomes.
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.