ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Surgical outcomes in acute type A aortic dissection: the effect of 5-hour time window on malperfusion syndrome.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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
Abstract
backgroundWhile a 5-hour time window for central aortic repair has been proposed to improve outcomes in acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) complicated by malperfusion, its efficacy relative to the number and nature of involved organs remains unclear.
methodsPatients who underwent surgical repair for ATAAD with malperfusion between January 2013 and December 2019 were enrolled and stratified by the number of malperfusion sites. Surgical outcomes were then compared between patients who received central repair within a 5-hour window and those treated beyond this timeframe.
resultsPreoperative organ malperfusion was present in 22.5% (237/1053) of patients. Among them, 62.4% (148/237) had single-organ involvement, while 37.6% (89/237) presented with multi-organ involvement (≥ 2 organs). An exploratory receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis identified a statistical cutoff of 4.5 h for predicting in-hospital mortality, conceptually supporting the 5-hour clinical window. Proximal malperfusion (coronary, cerebral) was common in the multi-organ group and was associated with a significantly worse prognosis. Central repair within the 5-hour window significantly improved long-term outcomes for patients with single-organ malperfusion. For those with multi-organ involvement, this strategy significantly improved early surgical outcomes, although the benefit diminished as the number of malperfused sites increased. Furthermore, for patients with proximal malperfusion, adhering to the 5-hour window helped mitigate irreversible damage to vital organs, increasing the likelihood of survival and functional recovery.
conclusionsThe 5-hour time window serves as a clear clinical intervention threshold, enabling clinicians to make rapid decisions during the acute phase, optimize treatment plans, and fundamentally improve patient 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.