Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 288

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Survival After Open Versus Endovascular Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm Repair in an Observational Study of the Medicare Population

Open access
Goodney, Philip P., Travis, Lori, Lucas, F. Lee, Fillinger, Mark F., Goodman, David C., Cronenwett, Jack L., Stone, David H.·2011·Circulation

Abstract

Background—: The goal of this study was to describe short- and long-term survival of patients with descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAAs) after open and endovascular repair (TEVAR). Methods and Results—: Using Medicare claims from 1998 to 2007, we analyzed patients who underwent repair of intact and ruptured TAA, identified from a combination of procedural and diagnostic International Classification of Disease , ninth revision, codes. Our main outcome measure was mortality, defined as perioperative mortality (death occurring before hospital discharge or within 30 days), and 5-year survival, from life-table analysis. We examined outcomes across repair type (open repair or TEVAR) in crude, adjusted (for age, sex, race, procedure year, and Charlson comorbidity score), and propensity-matched cohorts. Overall, we studied 12 573 Medicare patients who underwent open repair and 2732 patients who underwent TEVAR. Perioperative mortality was lower in patients undergoing TEVAR compared with open repair for both intact (6.1% versus 7.1%; P =0.07) and ruptured (28% versus 46%; P <0.0001) TAA. However, patients with intact TAA selected for TEVAR had significantly worse survival than open patients at 1 year (87% for open, 82% for TEVAR; P =0.001) and 5 years (72% for open; 62% for TEVAR; P =0.001). Furthermore, in adjusted and propensity-matched cohorts, patients selected for TEVAR had worse 5-year survival than patients selected for open repair. Conclusions—: Although perioperative mortality is lower with TEVAR, Medicare patients selected for TEVAR have worse long-term survival than patients selected for open repair. The results of this observational study suggest that higher-risk patients are being offered TEVAR and that some do not benefit on the basis of long-term survival. Future work is needed to identify TEVAR candidates unlikely to benefit from repair.

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.111.033944

Cites

33 of 33 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 33 references

Cited by

See all 288

Metadata

Authors
Goodney, P. P., Travis, L., Lucas, F. L., Fillinger, M. F., Goodman, D. C., Cronenwett, J. L., & Stone, D. H.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2011-12-13
Volume
124
Issue
24
Pages
2661-2669
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2037012289
Cited by
288
References
33
FWCI
19.30
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: Survival After Open Versus Endovascular Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm Repair in an Observational Study of the Medicare Population. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.111.033944
The paper
Goodney, P. P., Travis, L., Lucas, F. L., Fillinger, M. F., Goodman, D. C., Cronenwett, J. L., & Stone, D. H. (2011). Survival After Open Versus Endovascular Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm Repair in an Observational Study of the Medicare Population. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.111.033944

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.