MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117611969 · doi:10.1155/jocs/6735727

Outcomes After Primary Versus Delayed Sternal Closure in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection Repair

2025· article· en· W7117611969 on OpenAlexaff
Elie Fadel, Naila Benchelabi, Shum-Tim Dominique, Renzo Cecere, Christo Tchervenkov, B E De Varennes, Kevin Lachapelle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiac Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAortic dissectionRetrospective cohort studyCardiopulmonary bypassHemodynamicsDissection (medical)Single CenterClosure (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAD) is life‐threatening and requires emergency surgical repair. Patients face increased risk of postoperative coagulopathy and hemodynamic instability, prompting some surgeons to leave the chest open and return 48–72 h later for delayed sternal closure (DSC). Whether DSC increases postoperative complications remains understudied. This study aims to evaluate outcomes after ATAD repair in patients undergoing DSC versus primary sternal closure (PSC). Methods This single‐center retrospective study included 130 ATAD patients who underwent surgery between 2016 and 2024. Patients left the OR with either a closed chest (PSC) or an open chest for DSC. The primary outcome was all‐cause mortality at 90 days postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, a composite of postoperative infection (superficial and deep sternal wound, graft infection, bacteremia, and pneumonia), and 5‐year mortality. Results Of 130 patients, 23% ( n = 30) left the OR with an open chest with a median time to DSC of 2 [2; 3] days. Cardiopulmonary bypass time was higher in open versus closed chest patients (open chest: 237.9 ± 76.4; closed chest: 194.0 ± 51.8 min; p = 0.006). The 90‐day mortality rate was 20.0% ( n = 26), with no significant difference between open versus closed chest patients (open chest: 23.3%, n = 7; closed chest: 19.0%, n = 19; p = 0.60, RR 1.2 [0.6; 2.6]). There was no significant difference in ICU length of stay (open chest: 9.8 ± 11.0; closed chest: 9.0 ± 12.3 days; p = 0.18) or hospital (open chest: 22.2 ± 18.4; closed chest: 20.2 ± 22.8 days; p = 0.21) length of stay. There was no significant difference in postoperative infection (open chest: 26.7%, n = 8; closed chest: 20.0%, n = 20; p = 0.44, RR 1.3 [0.7; 2.7]) or 5‐year mortality (open chest: 26.7%, n = 8; closed chest: 25.0%, n = 25; p = 0.86, RR 1.1[0.5; 2.1]). Conclusions In patients presenting with ATAD, postoperative outcomes are similar regardless of whether patients left the OR with a closed chest or with an open chest for DSC. Our findings indicate that leaving the chest open after ATAD repair is an appropriate strategy to mitigate perioperative coagulopathy and/or hemodynamic instability.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.275 · 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.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiac SurgerySame topicAortic Disease and Treatment ApproachesFrench-language works237,207