Editor's Choice – International Expert Consensus on the Management of Acute Aortic Type B Intramural Haematoma and Penetrating Ulcer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to achieve an international expert consensus on managing acute type B penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) and intramural haematomas (IMHs). METHODS: A modified Delphi consensus process was employed to develop recommendations for the management of acute type B PAU and IMH. Surveys were sent to international experts practicing in high volume aortic centres worldwide. Statements were voted on using a four point Likert scale in a three round Delphi process. Statements achieving grade A (full agreement 75%) or B (overall agreement 80%, full disagreement < 5%) were included as expert recommendations. Consistency of responses was measured using Cohen's κ and the intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Eighty three experts were included in the final analysis: 25 statements achieved a consensus, 18 (72%) receiving a grade B strength and seven (28%) a grade A strength. Most statements (97%) had a high consistency classified as grade I or II. The expert panel agreed on the indication for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for complicated IMH/PAU, defined by rupture or refractory pain/hypertension. Uncomplicated IMH/PAU should be managed conservatively and followed up with serial computed tomography imaging during the acute phase. High risk uncomplicated IMHs are identified by increased haematoma thickness, new onset or increased size of ulcer like projections, or transition to aortic dissection; high risk uncomplicated PAUs are defined by new associated haematoma, PAU width/depth increase, or total aortic diameter increase. Uncomplicated high risk IMH/PAUs may be considered for TEVAR. In performing TEVAR, a proximal sealing length > 20 mm in a site free from haematoma should be achieved, eventually extending in zone 2, with a 0 - 10% oversize. Patency of the left subclavian artery should be maintained. CONCLUSION: An agreement among international experts was achieved on assessment, management, and follow up of acute type B IMHs and PAUs, addressing areas of inconsistencies or knowledge gaps in existing guidelines.
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 | 0.076 | 0.249 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.007 |
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".