ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Patient-specific computational simulation for thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with Stanford type B aortic dissection.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The accuracy and clinical utility of patient-specific computational simulations for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) planning in Stanford type B aortic dissection (TBAD) patients remain insufficiently validated. Objectives: This study aimed to develop and validate the safety and efficacy of a patient-specific computational simulation framework tailored for TEVAR in patients with TBAD. Methods: This prospective, observational, multicenter study enrolled 153 consecutive patients with TBAD undergoing TEVAR. Patients were stratified into two groups: the simulation group ( Results: The overall cohort had an average age of 67.1 ± 9.1 years, with 66.0% being male. The simulation group showed a higher procedural success rate (100.0% vs. 95.1%, Conclusions: Patient-specific computational simulation of TEVAR was associated with postprocedural hemodynamic profiles that closely matched simulated predictions, and showed favorable periprocedural trends and potential utility in optimizing pre-TEVAR planning. These findings are preliminary and require validation in randomized controlled settings.
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.