ArticleJTCVS open2026
Determining the aortic root diameter necessitating replacement during acute type A aortic dissection repair.
Article in JTCVS open, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate long-term outcomes after root preservation and identify the root diameter warranting concomitant replacement during acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) repair. Methods: Between January 2010 and December 2023, 681 patients with ATAAD underwent surgical repair. After excluding bicuspid aortic valve and connective tissue disorders, 42 patients underwent aortic root replacement or repair and 594 patients underwent ascending or total arch replacement with preservation of the native root. The patients were divided into 3 groups according to the aortic root diameter: <45 mm (group A; 535 patients), ≥45 and <50 mm (group B; 41 patients), and ≥50 mm (group C; 18 patients). Results: No significant differences in perioperative outcomes, specifically in-hospital mortality and stroke, were observed among the 3 study groups. The actual survival rates at 5 years and 10 years were 76.6% and 66.4% in group A, 79.2% and 66.0% in group B, and 94.1% and 44.1% in group C (log-rank Conclusions: During surgery for ATAAD, an aortic root with a diameter ≥50 mm should be replaced, given significantly higher 5- and 10-year proximal aortic reoperation rates. In patients with aortic root diameters <50 mm, even if ≥45 mm, the aortic root may be preserved.
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.