MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 13752: Current Management and Outcomes of Acute Intramural Hematoma

2023· article· en· W4389958545 on OpenAlexaff
Arturo Evangelista, Kevin M. Harris, Bradley Taylor, Maral Ouzounian, Alan C. Braverman, William T. Brinkman, Roland R.J. van Kimmenade, Melissa M. Levack, John F. Eidt, Derek R. Brinster, Chih Wen pai, George J. Arnaoutakis, Marco Di Eusanio, Dan Gilon, Eric M. Isselbacher, Kim A. Eagle

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAortic dissectionCardiac tamponadeInternal medicineHematomaLimb ischemiaCardiologySurgeryGastroenterologyAortaIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Optimal management of intramural hematoma (IMH) remains controversial. Previous studies offer conflicting information on how outcomes differ between patients with acute aortic dissection (AAD) and IMH. Methods: Patients enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD) between 1996 and 2023 were stratified by AAD and IMH. True IMH, defined as the presence of intramural hematoma in the absence of both double lumen and intimal flap, was noted in 605 patients (7.7%). Results: IMH was more common in Type B patients (12.7% IMH versus 5.1% with Type A). In both groups, IMH patients were older (mean age 70.4 vs. 61.3 years, p<0.001) and less frequently male (51.4% vs. 67.2%, p<0.001). Marfan Syndrome was less common with IMH (1.1% vs. 4.0%, p<0.001).For both dissection types, IMH patients less frequently demonstrated presenting mesenteric ischemia (Type A: 0.8% vs. 4.3%, p=0.003; Type B: 0.7% vs. 6.3%, p<0.001) or limb ischemia (Type A: 3.2% vs. 12.3%, p<0.001; Type B: 2.7% vs. 9.3%, p<0.001). Tamponade at presentation was more common in Type A IMH (17.9% vs. 11.6%, p=0.005). Type B IMH patients had less presenting renal failure (7.5% vs. 16.9%, p<0.001). Medical management alone was more commonly employed as a treatment strategy for IMH versus AAD, both in Type A (18.8% vs. 8.7%, p<0.001) and Type B (78.7% vs. 56.9%, p<0.0001). Correspondingly, Type B IMH patients had less endovascular management (15.6% vs. 29.3%, p<0.001). Surgery was delayed beyond 48 hours of diagnosis in almost twice as many surgical Type A IMH patients (14.9% vs. 8.4%, p=0.009). Additionally, medically managed type A IMH patients had lower mortality than those with AAD (33.3% vs. 58.0%, p=0.001), although medical mortality was still higher than that of surgical patients with IMH (33.3% vs. 12.0%, p<0.001). Kaplan-Meier analyses of 1-year post-discharge death, late intervention, and aortic growth were similar between groups. Conclusions: Intervention was less common among patients with IMH for both Type A and Type B. While a select subset of non-operative IMH patients had more favorable in-hospital outcomes compared to those with AAD, this mortality was still higher than for those IMH patients receiving surgery.

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)0.007
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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