Abstract 264: Pulse Pressure and Type A Acute Aortic Dissection Outcomes: Insights from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Little is known about the relationship between Type A Acute Aortic Dissection (TAAAD) and pulse pressure (PP), defined as the difference between systolic and diastolic blood pressure. This study explores the association between PP and presentation, complications and outcomes of TAAAD patients. Methods: PP at hospital presentation was used to divide 1,960 non-iatrogenic TAAAD patients into quartiles: narrowed (≤39 mmHg; n=430), normal (40-56 mmHg; n=554), mildly elevated (57-75 mmHg; n=490) and markedly elevated (≥76 mmHg; n=486). Variables relating to index presentation and in-hospital outcomes were analyzed. Results: TAAAD patients (patients) in the narrowed PP quartiles were more frequently older and Caucasian while patients with markedly elevated PPs tended to be male and have a history of hypertension. Patients who demonstrated abdominal vessel involvement more commonly demonstrated elevated PPs whereas patients with narrowed PPs were more likely to have periaortic hematoma and/or pericardial effusion. Narrowed PPs were also correlated with higher incidences of hypotension, cardiac tamponade and mortality. TAAAD patients who were managed with endovascular and hybrid procedures and those with renal failure tended to have elevated PPs. No difference in aortic regurgitation at presentation was noted between groups. Conclusions: TAAAD patients in the middle two PP quartiles had better in-hospital outcomes than patients in the outer quartiles. Patients with narrowed PPs experienced more cardiac complications, particularly cardiac tamponade, while those with elevated PPs were more likely to have abdominal aortic involvement. Presenting PP offers a clue to different manifestations of AAD that may facilitate initial triage and care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".