ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Long-term outcomes and prognostic factors of hybrid aortic arch repair: a 15-year cohort study.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate long-term outcomes of hybrid aortic arch repair for aortic arch lesions and identify factors associated with late mortality. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 103 patients with aortic arch lesions who received hybrid aortic arch repair at our center between January 2010 and September 2025. General clinical data, lesion types, surgical methods, perioperative outcomes, and long-term follow-up data were collected. Based on the bypass strategy, patients were divided into an ascending aorta (AA) inflow group ( Results: The mean age was 72.0 ± 10.2 years, and 83.5% were men. Diagnoses included intramural hematoma (40.8%), type B dissection (17.5%), type A dissection (14.6%), arch aneurysm (14.6%), and penetrating ulcer (12.6%). All patients successfully completed the procedure, with no intraoperative or 30-day deaths. During a median follow-up of 75.8 months (IQR, 29-128), procedure-related stroke occurred in 8 patients (7.8%), renal dysfunction in 18 (17.5%), and spinal cord ischemia in none. Eleven patients (10.7%) died, and 8 (7.8%) underwent reintervention, mainly for retrograde type A dissection, endoleak, or new-entry dilation. Survival at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years was 98.0%, 94.6%, 89.0%, and 85.8%; freedom from reintervention was 97.9%, 94.2%, 91.5%, and 89.9%. Cervical debranching was associated with better survival than ascending aortic inflow (log-rank Conclusions: Hybrid aortic arch repair was associated with favorable long-term survival, durable freedom from reintervention, and acceptable neurological outcomes in this single-center cohort. The observed survival advantage in the cervical debranching group should be interpreted cautiously, as ascending aorta inflow was preferentially used in patients with more complex proximal aortic disease. These findings should be considered hypothesis-generating and require validation in larger multicenter studies.
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.