MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 19334: Management and Outcomes of Acute Retrograde Type A Aortic Dissection: Insights From the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection

2015· article· en· W2564381127 on OpenAlexaff
Foeke J.H. Nauta, Joon Bum Kim, Himanshu J. Patel, Mark D. Peterson, Hans‐Henning Eckstein, Lori D. Conklin, Ali Khoynezhad, Marek Ehrlich, Marco Di Eusanio, Alessandro Della Corte, Daniel Montgomery, Eric M. Isselbacher, Kim A. Eagle, Christoph Nienaber, Thoralf M. Sundt, Santi Trimarchi

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAortic dissectionAscending aortaAortic archDissection (medical)Descending aortaSurgeryAortaCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Presentations and outcomes of acute aortic dissection (AD) with an entry tear in the ascending aorta may differ from retrograde dissection with an entry tear in the descending aorta. However, guidelines recommend urgent surgical repair for both entities. Methods and Results: All patients with AD enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD) between 1996 and 2014 were analyzed. We identified 99 patients (67 men; 63.2±14.0 years) with an entry tear in the descending aorta and retrograde extension into the arch or ascending aorta. Overall, independent predictors of retrograde type A AD were increasing age(OR 1.0; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.0; P=0.004), history of cocaine abuse (OR 4.9; 95% CI, 1.7 to 13.6; P=0.003), back pain at presentation (OR 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.3; P=0.002), and non-white race (OR 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2 to 0.6; P<0.001). During initial hospitalization, 44 of these patients were managed medically (MED), 33 with open surgery(SURG) and 22with endovascular therapy (ENDO). Patients in the SURG group presented with larger ascending aortic diameters than MED and ENDO patients (P=0.04). The majority of the MED (72.7%) and ENDO (86.4%) patients had AD extension confined to zone 1 (proximal arch, P<0.001), whereas most of the SURG patients (71.8%) presented with AD extension into zone 0 (proximal to the innominate artery, P<0.001). Early (30-day or in-hospital) mortality rates of the MED, SURG and ENDO groups were 9.1%, 18.2%, and 13.6%, respectively (P=0.51), with 5-year survival of 86.7%, 80.0%, and 90.9%, respectively (mean follow-up, 3.3 years, log rank P=0.67). A trend of favorable early mortality was observed in patients with retrograde extension till zone 1 (8.6%) versus into zone 0 (18.6%, P=0.14).Early mortality of patients with retrograde type A AD (12.9%) was lower than those with type A AD (20.0%, P=0.001), while 5-year survival was similar (86.8% and 89.5%, respectively, mean follow-up, 3.0 years, log rank P=0.96). Conclusion: There is a subset of patients with acute retrograde type A AD who can be managed non-operatively with acceptable short and long-term results. This implies that a selective approach may be reasonable, particularly among those with proximal extension limited to the arch distal to the innominate artery.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches→French-language works237,207→