2018
DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivy243
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Total arch repair with open placement of a novel double-branched stent graft for acute Type A aortic dissection: a single-centre experience with 21 consecutive patients

Abstract: Research on pathogenic risk factors or characteristic features and clinical treatment of aortic dissection in Chinese Population (20120216-4).

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…After reviewing shreds of evidence, a total of 35 studies including 3211 patients were entered into the quantitative analysis (Figure 1). 11–44 The median size of reviewed reports was 72 patients (interquartile range 38 – 122). The majority of studies were performed in Chinese institutions, 19 studies including 2026 patients.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After reviewing shreds of evidence, a total of 35 studies including 3211 patients were entered into the quantitative analysis (Figure 1). 11–44 The median size of reviewed reports was 72 patients (interquartile range 38 – 122). The majority of studies were performed in Chinese institutions, 19 studies including 2026 patients.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A total of 79,931 records were collected via online database review, out of which 7345 studies were eligible for abstract screening. After applying the exclusion criteria, 109 records were adopted for full‐text screening, and eventually, reported data of 43 studies including 5068 patients who underwent TAR with FET were reviewed 4,15–56 (Figure 1).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 46 studies 5–48 consisting of 6313 patients included in this meta‐analysis (Figure 1). The patients’ mean age was 57.5 (95% CI: 55.1–55.9).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%