Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 803

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized Comparison of Strategies for Type B Aortic Dissection: The INvestigation of STEnt Grafts in Aortic Dissection (INSTEAD) Trial

Nienaber, Christoph A., Rousseau, Hervé, Eggebrecht, Holger, Kische, Stephan, Fattori, Rossella, Rehders, Tim C., Kundt, Günther, Scheinert, Dierk, Czerny, Martin, Kleinfeldt, Tilo, Zipfel, Burkhart, Labrousse, Louis, Ince, Hüseyin·2009·Circulation

Abstract

Background— Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) represents a novel concept for type B aortic dissection. Although life-saving in acute emergencies, outcomes and survival of TEVAR in stable dissection are unknown. Methods and Results— One hundred forty patients in stable clinical condition at least 2 weeks after index dissection were randomly subjected to elective stent-graft placement in addition to optimal medical therapy (n=72) or to optimal medical therapy alone (n=68) with surveillance (arterial pressure according to World Health Organization guidelines ≤120/80 mm Hg). The primary end point was all-cause death at 2 years, whereas aorta-related death, progression (with need for conversion or additional endovascular or open surgery), and aortic remodeling were secondary end points. There was no difference in all-cause deaths, with a 2-year cumulative survival rate of 95.6±2.5% with optimal medical therapy versus 88.9±3.7% with TEVAR ( P =0.15); the trial, however, turned out to be underpowered. Moreover, the aorta-related death rate was not different ( P =0.44), and the risk for the combined end point of aorta-related death (rupture) and progression (including conversion or additional endovascular or open surgery) was similar ( P =0.65). Three neurological adverse events occurred in the TEVAR group (1 paraplegia, 1 stroke, and 1 transient paraparesis), versus 1 case of paraparesis with medical treatment. Finally, aortic remodeling (with true-lumen recovery and thoracic false-lumen thrombosis) occurred in 91.3% of patients with TEVAR versus 19.4% of those who received medical treatment ( P <0.001), which suggests ongoing aortic remodeling. Conclusions— In the first randomized study on elective stent-graft placement in survivors of uncomplicated type B aortic dissection, TEVAR failed to improve 2-year survival and adverse event rates despite favorable aortic remodeling. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00525356.

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/circulationaha.109.886408

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 16 references

Cited by

See all 803

Metadata

Authors
Nienaber, C. A., Rousseau, H., Eggebrecht, H., Kische, S., Fattori, R., Rehders, T. C., Kundt, G., Scheinert, D., Czerny, M., Kleinfeldt, T., Zipfel, B., Labrousse, L., & Ince, H.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2009-12-22
Volume
120
Issue
25
Pages
2519-2528
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2126242677
Cited by
803
References
16
FWCI
39.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Randomized Comparison of Strategies for Type B Aortic Dissection: The INvestigation of STEnt Grafts in Aortic Dissection (INSTEAD) Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.109.886408
The paper
Nienaber, C. A., Rousseau, H., Eggebrecht, H., Kische, S., Fattori, R., Rehders, T. C., Kundt, G., Scheinert, D., Czerny, M., Kleinfeldt, T., Zipfel, B., Labrousse, L., & Ince, H. (2009). Randomized Comparison of Strategies for Type B Aortic Dissection: The INvestigation of STEnt Grafts in Aortic Dissection (INSTEAD) Trial. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.109.886408

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.