ArticleJTCVS structural and endovascular2025
Does computed tomography angiography for the Adamkiewicz artery add value over standard scanning in thoracic endovascular aortic repair planning?
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To determine whether Adamkiewicz artery (AKA)-specific computed tomography angiography (CTA) offers additional value for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) planning beyond standard CTA and to identify cases that might benefit from its use, particularly in influencing treatment decisions and assessing spinal cord ischemia (SCI) risk. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 176 consecutive patients who underwent both standard CTA and AKA-CTA. Patients with >90 days between CTAs and those with reduced-contrast protocols were excluded. Two radiologists assessed the AKA branching levels, and the inter-CTA agreement of AKA findings on standard CTA was measured using AKA-CTA as a reference. We evaluated changes in TEVAR planning and SCI risk scores on the basis of the additional AKA-CTA data and conducted a multivariate logistic analysis to identify predictors of these changes. Results: Among 160 cases (median age 70 years [interquartile range, 58-77]; 110 male patients), the AKA was identified in 95 (59.4%) by standard CTA and in 155 (96.9%) by AKA-CTA. Standard CTA demonstrated 50% concordance with AKA-CTA findings. TEVAR planning was performed in 57 of 80 cases with inconsistent AKA results between CTAs, with adjustments in 18 cases on the basis of AKA-CTA information. Distal landing zone of ≥5 was the only significant predictor of clinical decisions influenced by AKA-CTA (odds ratio, 16; 95% confidence interval, 3.8-111). Conclusions: Although standard CTA identified the AKA with 50% concordance to AKA-CTA findings, AKA-CTA provided valuable insights over standard CTA, particularly in cases with a distal landing zone of ≥5, significantly impacting TEVAR planning and SCI risk 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.