SynthesisScience progress
Treatment of infected endografts after thoracic endovascular aortic repair: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Science progress. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveThe infection of the endograft after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is a rare but potentially life-threatening complication. Unfortunately, clinical reports, large case-series or randomized studies are scarce or not available yet, and the optimal management of this complication is under debate. The aim of this review is collecting and analysing data on current practice and outcomes for the treatment of infected endografts after TEVAR.MethodsA search on PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies reporting endograft infections after TEVAR was conducted up to January 2023. Data on study design, patients demographic, infection (time from TEVAR to infection, vascular imaging, bacterial samples), clinical strategies, outcome and follow-up were extracted and analysed. The outcome after surgical and conservative treatment was compared.ResultsThirty-six articles (5 case-series; 31 case reports) were deemed eligible for this review. A total of 57 patients (mean age: 62.5 ± 13.9 years) with endograft infections after TEVAR were included. Fever and pain were the two major clinical presentations. Mean time from TEVAR to diagnosis was 19.7 ± 36.4 months. The top four isolated microorganism were
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.