Warm aortic arch repair: Redefining proximal aortic arch surgery.

Shinichi Fukuhara, Robert B Hawkins, Gorav Ailawadi, Barbara Hamilton

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in JTCVS techniques, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Shinichi FukuharaDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.

Robert B HawkinsDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.

Gorav AilawadiDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.

Barbara HamiltonDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: We recently introduced warm aortic arch repair, a new novel approach that obviates the need for hypothermic circulatory arrest. However, there have been no comparative analyses with conventional repair. Methods: Between 2018 and 2024, 919 patients underwent hemiarch or partial arch repair. Clinical outcomes were compared between the warm aortic arch repair (n = 210) and conventional arch repair (n = 709) groups. Results: Baseline clinical characteristics were similar in the 2 groups, except type A aortic dissection was more common in the conventional repair group (49.2% vs 31.9%; Conclusions: Although the conventional aortic arch repair approach with hypothermic circulatory arrest is safe, warm aortic arch repair offers advantages, including better operative efficiency, lower transfusion rates, and improved postoperative metrics. This technique represents an opportunity to reevaluate the role of hypothermic circulatory arrest in aortic arch surgery.

Indexed as

hemiarch repairhypothermic circulatory arrestoperative timepartial aortic repairwarm aortic arch repair

Identifiers

PMID42292081

DOI10.1016/j.xjtc.2026.102325

PMCPMC13261217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC-ND

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.