ArticleJTCVS structural and endovascular2026
Endovascular repair of diseases originating in the ascending thoracic aorta: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in JTCVS structural and endovascular, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This report provides a concise overview of the published literature and clinical outcomes on ascending thoracic endovascular aortic repair (aTEVAR) for diseases originating in, but not restricted to, the ascending aorta. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched for aTEVAR procedures for diseases originating in the ascending aorta. Nonadult patients or studies with fewer than 5 patients were excluded. This review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statements. The Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions tool was used to assess quality. A Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation evidence certainty analysis was performed. Results: One prospective and 22 retrospective studies included a total of 356 patients (weighted mean age 68.6 ± 10.9 years; 59.3% male). The weighted mean follow-up was 21.2 ± 20.3 months, and prevalent comorbidities were hypertension (72.8%) and coronary artery disease (24.2%). Indications included type A dissections (acute 36.0%; chronic 19.9%), penetrating aortic ulcer (11.5%), and pseudoaneurysm (16.9%). Rapid ventricular pacing (33.4%) was most frequently adopted strategy to reduce cardiac output, and femoral/iliac artery access was used in 84.3%. Tubular stent grafts were used in 229 cases (64.3%), whereas physician-modified stent grafts were necessary in 110 cases (30.9%). In-hospital and follow-up mortality rates were 10.7% (95% CI, 6.3-13.1) and 20.5% (95% CI, 16.4-25.1). Subgroup analyses showed in-hospital and follow-up mortality rates for (acute and chronic) type A dissections of 9.8% (95% CI, 5.9-15.0) and 18.0% (95% CI, 12.7-24.3) subsequently; for penetrating aortic ulcer 9.0% (95% CI, 1.9-24.3) and 15.2% (95% CI, 5.1-31.9); and for pseudoaneurysm 2.8% (95% CI, 1.0-13.9) and 13.3% (95% CI, 5.9-24.6). Intra- and postoperative complications were reported in 43 and 192 cases, with endoleaks occurring in 14 (3.9%) and 37 (10.4%) cases, respectively. Conclusions: This systematic review assessed current strategies and outcomes for aTEVAR. The findings suggest that aTEVAR holds promise as a treatment option and highlight the potential for further integration of aTEVAR into clinical practice.
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.