SynthesisJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2026
Repair of residual aortic dissection after type a aortic dissection repair: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe outcomes after surgical repair of acute type A aortic dissection (aTAAD) have steadily improved during the last decades. However, a substantial number of patients need for secondary repair due to the residual aortic dissection (RAD). The managements of RAD after aTAAD repair are challenging and optimal repair strategies remain controversial.
methodsWe conducted MEDLINE and EMBASE database searches up to December 2023 for studies on the management of RAD after aTAAD repair. A systematic review was performed and both employed repair strategies and outcomes were evaluated.
results21 studies were deemed eligible for this review published between 2007 and 2023. A total of 452 patients, (mean age: 54.6 ± 12.5 years), underwent re-intervention for RAD after aTAAD repair were identified. The overall 30-day mortality was 4.2%. Mean follow-up time was 31 ± 27 months. Three management strategies (open repair [n = 87, 19.2%], endovascular intervention [n = 181, 40.1%], hybrid operation [n = 184, 40.7%]) for RAD after aTAAD were recognized. These various strategies showed 30-day mortality rates of 5.6%, 0.6% and 7.1%, respectively (p = 0.002). The overall stroke rate was 2.4% (5.6% for the open repair group, 0 for the endovascular group, and 3.3% for the hybrid group; p = 0.005). Nine patients (4.2%) suffered acute renal failure: 5.6% (5 of 87) with open repair, 0.6% (1 of 181) with endovascular intervention, and 1.6% (3 of 184) with hybrid operation (p = 0.031).
conclusionsThe available literature on management of RAD after aTAAD repair still consists of retrospective and heterogeneous case series. Despite endovascular intervention appears as a lower morbi-mortality rate in selected patients, general conclusion on the superiority of different management from solid statistical analysis is lacking. In regards to variable clinical features and pathology of RAD after aTAAD repair, an individualized approach is recommended.
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.