MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564738940 · doi:10.1093/icvts/ivw355

Classification and outcomes of extended arch repair for acute Type A aortic dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2016· review· en· W2564738940 on OpenAlexaff
Holly N. Smith, Munir Boodhwani, Maral Ouzounian, Richard Saczkowski, Alexander J. Gregory, Eric Herget, Jehangir J. Appoo

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversité de MontréalUniversity of TorontoLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of OttawaToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElephant trunksMedicineSurgeryPerioperativeStentAortic archAortic dissectionAorta

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Distal extent of repair in patients undergoing surgery for acute Type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is controversial. Emerging hybrid techniques involving open and endovascular surgery have been reported in small numbers by select individual centres. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to investigate the outcomes following extended arch repair for ATAAD. A classification system is proposed of the different techniques to facilitate discussion and further investigation. Methods: Using Ovid MEDLINE, 38 studies were identified reporting outcomes for 2140 patients. Studies were categorized into four groups on the basis of extent of surgical aortic resection and the method of descending thoracic aortic stent graft deployment; during circulatory arrest (frozen stented elephant trunk) or with normothermic perfusion and use of fluoroscopy (warm stent graft): (I) surgical total arch replacement, (II) total arch and frozen stented elephant trunk, (III) hemiarch and frozen stented elephant trunk and (IV) total arch and warm stent graft. Perioperative event rates were obtained for each of the four groups and the entire cohort using pooled summary estimates. Linearized rates of late mortality and reoperation were calculated. Results: Overall pooled hospital mortality for extended arch techniques was 8.6% (95% CI 7.2-10.0). Pooled data categorized by surgical technique resulted in hospital mortality of 11.9% for total arch, 8.6% total arch and frozen stented elephant trunk, 6.3% hemiarch and frozen stented elephant trunk and 5.5% total arch and 'warm stent graft'. Overall incidence of stroke for the entire cohort was 5.7% (95% CI 3.6-8.2). Rate of spinal cord ischaemia was 2.0% (95% CI 1.2-3.0). Pooled linearized rate of late mortality was 1.66%/pt-yr (95% CI 1.34-2.07) with linearized rate of re-operation of 1.62%/pt-yr (95% CI 1.24-2.05). Conclusions: Perioperative results of extended arch procedures are encouraging. Further follow-up is required to see if long-term complications are reduced with these emerging techniques. The proposed classification system will facilitate future comparison of short- and long-term results of different techniques of extended arch repair for ATAAD.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.031
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations79
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInteractive Cardiovascular and Thoracic SurgerySame topicAortic Disease and Treatment ApproachesFrench-language works237,207