ArticleJTCVS open2026
Aortic reinterventions following reoperative frozen elephant trunk aortic arch replacement for the treatment of residual type A aortic dissection.
Article in JTCVS open, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The optimal treatment strategy for residual Type A aortic arch dissections after ascending aortic replacement remains debated. This study evaluated the frequency and outcomes of aortic reinterventions after reoperative total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk (FET) implantation for residual Type A aortic dissection. Methods: Between April 2015 and March 2025, 116 patients underwent elective redo arch replacement using the FET technique for residual Type A dissection at 6 European aortic centers. Incidence, procedural characteristics, and outcomes of patients requiring downstream aortic reinterventions were retrospectively analyzed. Results: In-hospital mortality following FET implantation was 5% (n = 6). Among 110 hospital survivors, 43 patients (39%) required at least 1 aortic reintervention within 48 months: thoracic or abdominal endovascular aortic repair in 36 (80%), graft replacement in 2 (4.4%), and open thoracoabdominal replacement in 4 (9%). No spinal cord injury or disabling stroke occurred postoperatively; 3 patients (6%) died within 30 days of reintervention. After discharge, a second reintervention was necessary in 7 patients (16%), involving endovascular repair in 4 (57%) and open thoracoabdominal replacement in 3 (43%). The cumulative risk of any reintervention was 31.0% (95% CI, 23.1%-40.6%) at 2 years and 55.4% (95% CI, 42.0%-66.9%) at 4 years, whereas overall survival after FET was 87.8% (95% CI, 81.1%-95.1%) and 82.0% (95% CI, 72.1%-93.3%) at 2 and 4 years, respectively. Conclusions: Reoperative arch replacement with FET yields favorable survival but is accompanied by a substantial need for staged downstream aortic reinterventions, most of which can be managed endovascularly, underscoring the importance of structured long-term imaging surveillance.
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.