MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404450011 · doi:10.1016/j.xjon.2024.11.004

Distal anastomotic new entry tears and aortic remodeling following type A dissection repair: A systematic review

2024· review· en· W4404450011 on OpenAlexaff
Ryaan EL‐Andari, Nicholas M. Fialka, Abdullah Alshehri, Ali Fatehi Hassanabad, Sabin J. Bozso, Michael C. Moon

Bibliographic record

VenueJTCVS Open · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTearsMedicineAnastomosisAortic dissectionDissection (medical)SurgeryCardiologyInternal medicineAorta

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is an emergent, life-threatening condition. 1Traditionally, the focus of ATAAD, both clinically and in research settings, has been on the acute and perioperative phases.The significant surgical risk, complex management, and high rates of postoperative morbidity have garnered the bulk of the attention for these patients.Our understanding of the pathophysiology and surgical management of ATAAD have evolved over the preceding decades, with a greater emphasis on longterm outcomes and aortic remodeling. [2][3]3][4][5][6][7] Approaches for mitigating adverse remodeling have been highlighted in the most recent Society of Thoracic Surgeons and European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery aortic guidelines. 8Poor outcomes related to adverse aortic remodeling have been identified, and factors that impact adverse aortic remodeling have been uncovered.One such factor is distal anastomotic new entry tears (DANE).DANE refers to tears at the distal aortic anastomosis, thought to result from communications at the distal suture line, which create new tears allowing false lumen (FL) perfusion.DANE has been reported in up to 70% of ATAAD cases and is associated with adverse aortic remodeling and outcomes. 3,[9][10]0][11] Commonly identified following ATAAD on appropriate postoperative imaging, numerous approaches have been undertaken in an attempt to prevent DANE and in turn facilitate improved aortic remodeling and outcomes.Here we report a systematic review of the literature focused on the development and prevention of DANE and adverse aortic remodeling following ATAAD repair. METHODS Data SourcesPubMed and Embase databases were searched by 2 authors.The search was conducted based on the PRISMA guidelines. 12The following search terms were used in the study: "aortic dissection, type A aortic dissection, distal anastomotic new entry tear, DANE, total arch replacement, hemiarch replacement, partial arch replacement (PAR), FET, frozen elephant trunk, AMDS, Ascyrus medical dissection stent, thoracic endovascular aortic repair, TEVAR".These terms were used individually or in combination for the search.The review included any studies of ATAAD patients that reported rates of DANE, aortic remodeling, and surgical strategies to mitigate DANE and adverse aortic remodeling.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJTCVS OpenSame topicAortic Disease and Treatment ApproachesFrench-language works237,207