Fate of the unoperated ascending thoracic aortic aneurysm: three-decade experience from the Aortic Institute at Yale University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study aims to outline the 'true' natural history of ascending thoracic aortic aneurysm (ATAA) based on a cohort of patients not undergoing surgical intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: The outcomes, risk factors, and growth rates of 964 unoperated ATAA patients were investigated, over a median follow-up of 7.9 (maximum of 34) years. The primary endpoint was adverse aortic events (AAE), including dissection, rupture, and aortic death. At aortic sizes of 3.5-3.9, 4.0-4.4, 4.5-4.9, 5.0-5.4, 5.5-5.9, and ≥6.0 cm, the average yearly risk of AAE was 0.2%, 0.2%, 0.3%, 1.4%, 2.0%, and 3.5%, respectively (P < 0.001), and the 10-year survival free from AAE was 97.8%, 98.2%, 97.3%, 84.6%, 80.4%, and 70.9%, respectively (P < 0.001). The risk of AAE was relatively flat until 5 cm of aortic size, at which it began to increase rapidly (P for non-linearity <0.001). The mean annual growth rate was estimated to be 0.10 ± 0.01 cm/year. Ascending thoracic aortic aneurysms grew in a very slow manner, and aortic growth over 0.2 cm/year was rarely seen. Multivariable Cox regression identified aortic size [hazard ratio (HR): 1.78, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.50-2.11, P < 0.001] and age (HR: 1.02, 95% CI: 1.00-1.05, P = 0.015) as significant independent risk factors for AAE. Interestingly, hyperlipidemia (HR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.23-0.91, P = 0.025) was found to be a significant protective factor for AAE in univariable Cox regression. CONCLUSION: An aortic size of 5 cm, rather than 5.5 cm, may be a more appropriate intervention criterion for prophylactic ATAA repair. Aortic growth may not be an applicable indicator for intervention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".