ArticleJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2026
Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes Following Endovascular and Hybrid Repair of Aortic Arch Aneurysms.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endovascular and hybrid treatment approaches in patients with aortic arch aneurysms. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included 68 male and female patients with a confirmed diagnosis of either an aortic arch aneurysm or a descending thoracic aortic aneurysm with a short proximal landing zone (<1.5 cm) who underwent either hybrid or endovascular treatment at the Department of Vascular Surgery between January 2017 and December 2024. Study outcomes included a composite measure of technical success, a composite measure of in-hospital clinical success, and a composite measure of long-term treatment outcomes, including stroke, myocardial infarction, and aortic-related mortality.
resultsAll 68 patients were divided into two groups: Group I comprised patients who underwent endovascular treatment, whereas Group II included patients who underwent hybrid surgical treatment. The groups were comparable with regard to demographic and anatomical characteristics, clinical presentation, and comorbidities. The composite technical success rate (defined as successful target stent-graft deployment without conversion to open surgery and absence of type I or type III endoleaks) was comparable between the groups at the intraoperative stage (
conclusionsIn this preliminary single-centre study, endovascular and hybrid approaches showed comparable technical efficacy in the early postoperative period. However, hybrid surgical treatment was associated with a less favourable safety profile during the early postoperative period, as reflected by the significantly lower in-hospital composite clinical success rate and longer hospital stay than in the endovascular group. These findings remained robust after correction for multiple testing. Long-term results should be interpreted with caution and require confirmation in larger prospective studies with longer and balanced follow-up periods.
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.