Abstract 18628: Aortic Arch Dissection: Does it Matter in the Current Management of Type B?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Current guidelines report that arch involvement in aortic dissection requires open surgical repair. However, arch dissections are frequently managed with less invasive treatment when ascending aorta involvement is absent. The aim of this project is to clarify the importance of aortic arch involvement in such conditions, Methods: Patients with aortic arch dissection enrolled in IRAD from January 1, 1996 to May 1, 2012 were included in this analysis. Patient groups were defined based on the location of the entry tear and aortic extension: entry tear in the aortic arch with extension confined to the arch (group 1; n = 8), entry tear in the aortic arch with antegrade extension (group 2; n = 55) and entry tear in de descending or abdominal aorta with retrograde extension into the arch (group 3; n = 55). For this abstract, we analyzed the difference in therapies and outcome for these groups. Results: Compared with the other groups, isolated arch patients presented more frequent with syncope, an abrupt onset of pain and less frequent with posterior pain. Treatment differed among groups and most of the isolated arch patients were treated medically. One third of the Group 3 patients was managed endovascular, with excellent outcomes, with a total in-hospital mortality of 7.3% (p = .062). No differences in mortality were observed during follow-up. (p = .193) Conclusion: Aortic arch involvement in aortic dissection is diverse and our observations emphasize that open surgical repair may be not always indicated in all patients. Selective patients, based on entry tear and aortic extension, might benefit from less invasive treatment options, such as endovascular repair and medical therapy
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".