Mortality and risk factors for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm after repair endovascular (rARE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to characterize risk factors for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture after endovascular repair (rARE) and evaluate 30-day mortality in comparison to primary ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA). Methods: A retrospective review of all adult patients with rAAA at a single tertiary university care center between February 11, 2006, and December 31, 2018, was performed. A total of 267 patients with rAAA were identified, 11 of whom had rARE. Descriptive statistics were applied due to the small sample size. Results: Overall 30-day mortality was similar between primary rAAA and rARE (31.5% vs 27.3%); however, patients with rARE were more likely to receive palliative care (3.9% vs 18.2%). Mortality of patients who underwent operative intervention was 11.1% for rARE and 28.7% for primary rAAA at 30 days. All patients had an endoleak at the time of rupture. Type 1 and type 3 endoleaks resulting in direct aortic sac pressurization were the primary cause of rARE (9 of 11 patients); however, rupture occurred in two patients with only a type 2 endoleak. There was no sac expansion at the time of rupture in four of 11 patients with rARE. Four of 11 patients were lost to follow-up prior to rARE. Conclusions: rARE is an uncommon complication following EVAR and contributes to late aneurysm-related mortality following endovascular repair. Although the 30-day mortality rate was similar for rARE and primary rAAA, larger series are required to determine which patients with rARE will benefit from intervention. The presence of endoleak and sac expansion may alert surgeons to increased risk of rARE; however, a subset of patients with rARE did not have sac expansion or surveillance imaging on follow-up. Loss to lifelong imaging surveillance remains a risk factor for rARE.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".