ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Single-center clinical analysis of hybrid aortic arch repair for aortic arch lesions.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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.
- Long-term outcomes and prognostic factors of hybrid aortic arch repair: a 15-year cohort study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the safety and short-to-mid-term efficacy of hybrid aortic arch repair (HAR) within a structured, anatomy- and risk-based decision-making framework for heterogeneous aortic arch lesions. Methods: Forty-five consecutive patients with aortic arch lesions who underwent HAR between January 2019 and January 2024 were retrospectively included. Lesions comprised degenerative arch aneurysm (46.7%), non-A non-B aortic dissection (33.3%), residual arch disease after Type A repair (13.3%), and penetrating ulcers (6.7%). Preoperative computed tomography angiography and EuroSCORE II were used for anatomical assessment and risk stratification. Based on a two-dimensional principle of anatomical suitability and comorbidity risk, patients were assigned to Type I HAR ( Results: All procedures were technically successful, with no intraoperative or 30-day mortality. Type I HAR showed the shortest operative time and least blood loss, whereas Type II had the highest surgical complexity and longest recovery. Postoperative complications were minor, and no stroke, renal failure, or permanent organ injury occurred. During a median follow-up of 18 months (range, 6-36 months), no aortic-related death, endoleak, reintervention, or branch vessel occlusion occurred. Aorta-related survival and freedom from reintervention were both 100%. Conclusion: Individualized HAR guided by anatomical features and patient risk provides a safe and effective treatment for complex aortic arch lesions, particularly in high-risk patients unsuitable for open surgery.
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.