ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2026
Aortic arch surgery in real-life practice: is the frozen elephant trunk always a better option than conventional aortic arch replacement?
Article 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveManagement of aortic arch disease (AAD) is complex due to its involvement in multiple aortic segments and the variety of patient presentations. We compared the clinical outcomes of conventional aortic arch repair (CAAR) and the Frozen Elephant Trunk (FET) technique across the main clinical indications: acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD), chronic dissection and atheromatous aneurysm. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a retrospective, single-centre cohort study of 102 consecutive patients who underwent aortic arch repair between January 2012 and June 2023. Indication-specific subgroup analyses were the primary analytical framework. Patients were divided according to the surgical technique: CAAR (n = 45, 44.1%) or FET (n = 57, 55.9%). Pre- and post-operative CT-angiograms were analysed. The primary endpoint was one-year survival. Secondary endpoints included post-operative morbidity, aortic diameter evolution, and freedom from a composite aortic event. Time-to-event endpoints were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test.
resultsOne-year mortality was 27.5% (CAAR 28.9% vs. FET 26.3%; not statistically different in indication-specific subgroups). Mortality was driven by ATAAD (35.4%) and chronic dissection (30.8%); it was 4.2% in atheromatous aneurysm. In ATAAD, FET was associated with favourable aortic remodelling, with a 24.3% reduction in isthmus diameter compared with a 25.8% increase after CAAR (p = 0.0005). In chronic dissection, FET resulted in a 13.6% reduction in isthmus diameter at follow-up. In aneurysmal disease, FET stabilised aortic diameters whereas CAAR was associated with a 20.8% increase in isthmus diameter (p < 0.05). Reinterventions were more frequent after FET (42.1% vs. 17.8%); the great majority were planned staged TEVAR extensions.
conclusionIn experienced centres, the FET technique appears safe and is associated with favourable aortic remodelling. It represents a valuable option when downstream aortic disease or future endovascular extension is anticipated. Given the non-randomised design and indication imbalance, our data do not support a definitive claim of superiority over CAAR. Surgical strategy should remain anatomy- and indication-driven within a lifetime aortic management framework.
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.