Cheng Wei, Li Zhiqiang, Ye Zankai, Zhu Yaobin, Ding Nan, Yan Daole, Yi Hanlu, Zhang Jinrui, Ni Xin
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery II, Beijing Children's Hospital, Capital Medical University, National Center for Children's Health.
Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Beijing Children's Hospital, Capital Medical University, National Center for Children's Health.
Int Heart J. 2023 Mar 31;64(1):10-21. doi: 10.1536/ihj.21-643. Epub 2023 Jan 23.
Evidence on the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of stent implantation and balloon angioplasty for native coarctation of the aorta (CoA) and recurrent CoA separately is lacking. The present meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of stent implantation and balloon angioplasty in native (NaCo) and recurrent (ReCo) CoA.A systematic computerized literature search was conducted to retrieve all relevant studies of stent implantation and balloon angioplasty for CoA. Both single-arm and comparative studies were included. Data on NaCo and ReCo were pooled separately.A post-procedure gradient of ≤ 20 mmHg was achieved in 97% and 92% of patients undergoing stent implantation and balloon angioplasty for NaCo, and in 98% and 90% for ReCo, respectively. A post-procedure gradient of ≤ 10 mmHg was achieved in 97% and 83% of patients undergoing stent implantation and balloon angioplasty for NaCo, and in 86% and 78% for ReCo, respectively. Comparative results confirmed that stent implantation provided a significantly higher success rate compared with balloon angioplasty (odds ratio [OR] = 2.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.13-3.86; P = 0.019) in treating NaCo. Incidences of all-cause complications, mortality, reintervention, and aneurysm formation were similar between the groups. Patients undergoing stent implantation had a significantly lower incidence of dissection (OR = 0.15; 95% CI = 0.02-0.92; P = 0.040).Current evidence indicates that stent implantation might have superior efficacy compared with balloon angioplasty for the treatment of NaCo with higher success rates and similar complication rates. However, whether this superior effect is also present in ReCo patients needs further evaluation.
目前缺乏关于支架植入术和球囊血管成形术分别治疗原发性主动脉缩窄(CoA)和复发性CoA的有效性及对比有效性的证据。本荟萃分析旨在评估支架植入术和球囊血管成形术治疗原发性(NaCo)和复发性(ReCo)CoA的疗效和安全性。通过系统的计算机文献检索,获取所有关于CoA的支架植入术和球囊血管成形术的相关研究。单臂研究和对比研究均被纳入。分别汇总了NaCo和ReCo的数据。接受支架植入术和球囊血管成形术治疗NaCo的患者中,术后压差≤20 mmHg的比例分别为97%和92%,治疗ReCo的患者中该比例分别为98%和90%。接受支架植入术和球囊血管成形术治疗NaCo的患者中,术后压差≤10 mmHg的比例分别为97%和83%,治疗ReCo的患者中该比例分别为86%和78%。对比结果证实,在治疗NaCo方面,支架植入术的成功率显著高于球囊血管成形术(优势比[OR]=2.09;95%置信区间[CI]=1.13 - 3.86;P = 0.019)。两组间全因并发症、死亡率、再次干预和动脉瘤形成的发生率相似。接受支架植入术的患者夹层发生率显著更低(OR = 0.15;95% CI = 0.02 - 0.92;P = 0.040)。目前的证据表明,在治疗NaCo方面,支架植入术可能比球囊血管成形术具有更高的疗效,成功率更高且并发症发生率相似。然而,这种优势在ReCo患者中是否也存在需要进一步评估。