ArticleOpen heart2026
Ethnic variation in thoracic aortic dimensions in the general population: a comparison between Indian and Dutch populations.
Article in Open heart, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dissection dimensions differ: Global variability in ascending aortic size challenges universal surgical thresholds.JTCVS structural and endovascular · 2026Article
- Dedicated Single-Branch Platforms for Totally Endovascular Zone 2 TEVAR with LSA Revascularization: A Comparison of Castor/Cratos and Gore TAG Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAortic dimensions are critical for assessing the risk of acute aortic complications and guiding surgical interventions. Current guidelines define absolute diameter thresholds based largely on Western cohorts, while data on Indian patients remain limited. To address this gap, our study provides a direct, large-scale comparison of aortic diameters between Indian and Dutch individuals to determine whether existing geometry-based surgical guidelines are equally applicable across populations.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, we analysed all consecutive patients who underwent CT imaging between January and December 2022 at SIMS Hospital (India) and Amsterdam University Medical Center (Netherlands). Aortic diameters were measured at five predefined anatomical locations: aortic root, ascending aorta, aortic arch, descending aorta and abdominal aorta. Multivariable linear regression models were used, adjusting for age, sex, height and comorbidities.
resultsA total of 3692 patients were included (2000 Indian and 1692 Dutch). Indian patients had a larger aortic root (33.9 ± 4.6 mm vs 31.5 ± 5.4 mm; p<0.001), whereas Dutch patients had significantly larger diameters of the ascending aorta (33.1 ± 5.4 mm vs 30.5 ± 4.3 mm; p<0.001), aortic arch (29.8 ± 4.5 mm vs 26.4 ± 3.7 mm; p<0.001), descending aorta (26.7 ± 4.2 mm vs 23.0 ± 3.9 mm; p<0.001) and abdominal aorta (23.1 ± 5.0 mm vs 21.3 ± 3.4 mm; p<0.001). These differences persisted after adjustment for age, sex, height and comorbidities.
conclusionsIn this first global comparison of ascending aortic dimensions between Indian and Dutch patients, we demonstrate substantial geographic heterogeneity. These findings highlight concerns about applying current surgical thresholds to Indian patients with aortopathy and emphasise the need for individualised risk assessment and treatment strategies in this population. Future guidelines should consider population-specific differences in India and incorporate indexed measurements to optimise personalised surgical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.