Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 197

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Meta-analysis of open versus endovascular repair for ruptured descending thoracic aortic aneurysm

Open access
Jonker, Frederik H.W., Trimarchi, Santi, Verhagen, Hence J.M., Moll, Frans L., Sumpio, Bauer E., Muhs, Bart E.·2010·Journal of Vascular Surgery

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Ruptured descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (rDTAA) is associated with high mortality rates. Data supporting endovascular thoracic aortic aneurysm repair (TEVAR) to reduce mortality compared with open repair are limited to small series. We investigated published reports for contemporary outcomes of open and endovascular repair of rDTAA. METHODS We systematically reviewed all studies describing the outcomes of rDTAA treated with open repair or TEVAR since 1995 using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library CENTRAL, and Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE) databases. Case reports or studies published before 1995 were excluded. All articles were critically appraised for relevance, validity, and availability of data regarding treatment outcomes. All data were systematically pooled, and meta-analyses were performed to investigate 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and paraplegia rates after both types of repair. RESULTS Original data of 224 patients (70% male) with rDTAA were identified: 143 (64%) were treated with TEVAR and 81 (36%) with open repair. Mean age was 70 +/- 5.6 years. The 30-day mortality was 19% for patients treated with TEVAR for rDTAA compared 33% for patients treated with open repair, which was significant (odds ratio [OR], 2.15, P = .016). The 30-day occurrence rates of myocardial infarction (11.1% vs 3.5%; OR, 3.70, P < .05), stroke (10.2% vs 4.1%; OR, 2.67; P = .117), and paraplegia (5.5% vs 3.1%; OR, 1.83; P = .405) were increased after open repair vs TEVAR, but this failed to reach statistical significance for stroke and paraplegia. Five additional patients in the TEVAR group died of aneurysm-related causes after 30 days, during a median follow-up of 17 +/- 10 months. Follow-up data after open repair were insufficient. The estimated aneurysm-related survival at 3 years after TEVAR was 70.6%. CONCLUSION Endovascular repair of rDTAA is associated with a significantly lower 30-day mortality rate compared with open surgical repair. TEVAR was associated with a considerable number of aneurysm-related deaths during follow-up.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jvs.2009.10.103

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 197

Metadata

Authors
Jonker, F. H. W., Trimarchi, S., Verhagen, H. J. M., Moll, F. L., Sumpio, B. E., & Muhs, B. E.
Venue
Journal of Vascular Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-04
Volume
51
Issue
4
Pages
1026-1032.e2
ISSN
0741-5214 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2019272962
Cited by
197
References
0
FWCI
3.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Meta-analysis of open versus endovascular repair for ruptured descending thoracic aortic aneurysm. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jvs.2009.10.103
The paper
Jonker, F. H. W., Trimarchi, S., Verhagen, H. J. M., Moll, F. L., Sumpio, B. E., & Muhs, B. E. (2010). Meta-analysis of open versus endovascular repair for ruptured descending thoracic aortic aneurysm. Journal of Vascular Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2009.10.103

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.