ArticleJTCVS structural and endovascular2025
Root and arch replacements in acute type A aortic dissection suggest lower risk of open distal reintervention.
Article in JTCVS structural and endovascular, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate how different approaches for root and arch management during the first surgery for acute type A aortic dissection impact long-term freedom from reintervention, particularly distal reintervention. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study analyzing 164 patients who underwent acute type A aortic dissection surgery from January 2009 to April 2024. Patients were stratified into root replacement (n = 75) and non-root replacement (n = 89) groups. The root replacement group was further stratified by arch intervention type. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression models were performed to assess the impact of root and arch interventions on freedom from reinterventions. Results: Root replacement significantly reduced the risk of any reintervention (hazard ratio, 0.496, Conclusions: Root and total arch replacements in acute type A aortic dissection demonstrated reduced risk of reinterventions, particularly open reintervention distal to the arch. More aggressive approaches have the potential to reduce the burden and cost of subsequent operations and improve long-term outcomes. However, although root and total arch replacements offer excellent long-term benefits, they are more complex with potentially higher perioperative risks. The decision to pursue more aggressive interventions should be based on a comprehensive patient assessment.
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.