Key result
Endovascular treatment for pulmonary vein stenosis resulted in overall survival rates of 71% at 1 year and 49% at 5 years, with bare-metal stent placement demonstrating significantly better survival.
Why the study?
Despite aggressive surgical or catheter-based interventions, the prognosis of pulmonary vein stenosis remains unsatisfactory, prompting this assessment of prognosis and treatment strategies.
Does endovascular treatment improve survival and stent patency in patients with congenital heart disease and pulmonary vein stenosis?
Cohort (n=31)
No
Does endovascular treatment improve survival and stent patency in patients with congenital heart disease and pulmonary vein stenosis?
Endovascular treatment of pulmonary vein stenosis in congenital heart disease has poor long-term outcomes, though bare-metal stenting and larger stent sizes may improve survival and patency.
Guarded long-term survival after endovascular treatment in congenital pulmonary vein stenosis; leaves open optimal stent selection for prospective trials.
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vein stenosis (PVS) is a condition with challenging treatment and leads to severe cardiac failure and pulmonary hypertension. Despite aggressive surgical or catheter-based intervention, the prognosis of PVS is unsatisfactory. This study aimed to assess the prognosis and to establish appropriate treatment strategies. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed endovascular treatments for PVS (2001-2017) from the clinical database at the Okayama University Hospital. RESULTS: A total of 24 patients underwent PVS associated with total anomalous pulmonary venous connection and 7 patients underwent isolated congenital PVS. In total, 53 stenotic pulmonary veins were subjected to endovascular treatments; 40 of them were stented by hybrid (29) and percutaneous procedures (11) (bare-metal stent, n = 34; drug-eluting stent, n = 9). Stent size of hybrid stenting was larger than percutaneous stenting. Median follow-up duration from the onset of PVS was 24 months (4-134 months). Survival rate was 71 and 49% at 1 and 5 years, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between stent placement and survival; however, patients who underwent bare-metal stent implantation had statistically better survival than those who underwent drug-eluting stent implantation or balloon angioplasty. Early onset of stenosis, timing of stenting, and small vessel diameter of pulmonary vein before stenting were considered as risk factors for in-stent restenosis. Freedom from re-intervention was 50 and 26% at 1 and 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: To improve survival and stent patency, implantation of large stent is important. However, re-intervention after stenting is also significant to obtain good outcome.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kurita et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Pulmonary vein stenosis in congenital heart disease (n=31). Endovascular treatment (bare-metal stent placement vs balloon angioplasty) vs. Balloon angioplasty or non-bare-metal stent was evaluated on Overall survival rate. Endovascular treatment for pulmonary vein stenosis resulted in overall survival rates of 71% at 1 year and 49% at 5 years, with bare-metal stent placement demonstrating significantly better survival.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: