Pulmonary vein stenosis – ballooning vs. stenting: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (3rd October 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Almakadma, A; Simard, T J; Sarma, D; Hassett, L; Alkhouli, M; Packer, D L; Holmes, D R
• Is Part Of: European heart journal. Volume 43(2022)Supplement 2
• Publication Date: 2022-10-03
• Subjects: Cardiology -- Periodicals; Heart -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.12005
• DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac544.2075
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0195-668X

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Pulmonary vein stenosis (PVS), which is often unrecognized, may arise from a variety of conditions resulting in major morbidity and mortality. In some patients, pharmacological therapy may help but more often in advance stages, mechanical treatment must be considered. Transcatheter approaches, both balloon angioplasty (BA) and stent implantation have been applied. While both may be effective, they continue to be limited by restenosis. Herein, we compare the outcomes following BA and stenting for PVS. Purpose: PVS presents a challenge for both diagnosis and therapy, with BA and stenting being primarily limited by restenosis. Stenting is performed in most cases and is associated with improved patency rates. Historical comparisons of BA and stenting for PVS have yielded similar results. Our analysis incorporates more conventional studies (2010–2021) and provides a larger stent (N=361) versus BA (N=229) contemporary analysis of the current state of PV intervention practice. Methods: From January 1, 2010 to August 2, 2021, studies, limited to English language and humans, were assessed in Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus. Two independent reviewers screened articles including those in which balloon angioplasty or stenting was performed for pulmonary vein stenosis with reporting of restenosis outcomes and data was independently extracted. Systematic review was performed, and overall restenosis rates were reported across all included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed using RevMan 5.4 assessing rates of restenosis and restenosis requiring repeat intervention. Results: Our systematic review yielded 34 studies reporting on BA and/or stenting for PVS. Of these, 7 studies (1–7), treating a total of 343 patients with 590 PV interventions (229 BA and 361 Stents) reported restenosis rates with mean follow-up ranging from 10 to 60 months. Stenting was associated with a lower risk of restenosis compared to balloon angioplasty [risk ratio 0.35, 95% CI (0.18, 0.64), p=0.0008] (Figure 1). Restenosis requiring repeat intervention was reported in 5 studies, including 303 patients with 502 PV interventions (160 BA and 342 Stents) with stenting similarly associated with a lower risk of restenosis requiring re-intervention [risk ratio 0.34, 95% CI (0.16, 0.72), p=0.005]. Conclusion: Stenting for pulmonary vein stenosis is associated with reduced risk of restenosis and re-intervention as compared to balloon angioplasty. Funding Acknowledgement: Type of funding sources: None.