Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,110

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Endovascular Repair of Type B Aortic Dissection: Long-term Results of the Randomized Investigation of Stent Grafts in Aortic Dissection Trial

Open access
Nienaber, Christoph A., Kische, Stephan, Rousseau, Hervé, Eggebrecht, Holger, Rehders, Tim C., Kundt, Guenther, Glass, Aenne, Scheinert, Dierk, Czerny, Martin, Kleinfeldt, Tilo, Zipfel, Burkhart, Labrousse, Louis, Fattori, Rossella, Ince, Hüseyin·2013·Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions

Abstract

Background—: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) represents a therapeutic concept for type B aortic dissection. Long-term outcomes and morphology after TEVAR for uncomplicated dissection are unknown. Methods and Results—: A total of 140 patients with stable type B aortic dissection previously randomized to optimal medical treatment and TEVAR (n=72) versus optimal medical treatment alone (n=68) were analyzed retrospectively for aorta-specific, all-cause outcomes, and disease progression using landmark statistical analysis of years 2 to 5 after index procedure. Cox regression was used to compare outcomes between groups; all analyses are based on intention to treat. The risk of all-cause mortality (11.1% versus 19.3%; P =0.13), aorta-specific mortality (6.9% versus 19.3%; P =0.04), and progression (27.0% versus 46.1%; P =0.04) after 5 years was lower with TEVAR than with optimal medical treatment alone. Landmark analysis suggested a benefit of TEVAR for all end points between 2 and 5 years; for example, for all-cause mortality (0% versus 16.9%; P =0.0003), aorta-specific mortality (0% versus 16.9%; P =0.0005), and for progression (4.1% versus 28.1%; P =0.004); Landmarking at 1 year and 1 month revealed consistent findings. Both improved survival and less progression of disease at 5 years after elective TEVAR were associated with stent graft induced false lumen thrombosis in 90.6% of cases ( P <0.0001). Conclusions—: In this study of survivors of type B aortic dissection, TEVAR in addition to optimal medical treatment is associated with improved 5-year aorta-specific survival and delayed disease progression. In stable type B dissection with suitable anatomy, preemptive TEVAR should be considered to improve late outcome. Clinical Trial Registration—: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01415804.

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 · 10.1161/circinterventions.113.000463

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 1,110

Metadata

Authors
Nienaber, C. A., Kische, S., Rousseau, H., Eggebrecht, H., Rehders, T. C., Kundt, G., Glass, A., Scheinert, D., Czerny, M., Kleinfeldt, T., Zipfel, B., Labrousse, L., Fattori, R., & Ince, H.
Venue
Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions
Published
2013-08
Volume
6
Issue
4
Pages
407-416
ISSN
  • 1941-7632 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-7640
OpenAlex
W2098255591
Cited by
1,110
References
0
FWCI
50.18
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: Endovascular Repair of Type B Aortic Dissection: Long-term Results of the Randomized Investigation of Stent Grafts in Aortic Dissection Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circinterventions.113.000463
The paper
Nienaber, C. A., Kische, S., Rousseau, H., Eggebrecht, H., Rehders, T. C., Kundt, G., Glass, A., Scheinert, D., Czerny, M., Kleinfeldt, T., Zipfel, B., Labrousse, L., Fattori, R., & Ince, H. (2013). Endovascular Repair of Type B Aortic Dissection: Long-term Results of the Randomized Investigation of Stent Grafts in Aortic Dissection Trial. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. https://doi.org/10.1161/circinterventions.113.000463

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.