Aims: Stent placement as treatment for coarctation of the aorta (CoA) has become a more common choice in the last 20 years. Clinical results of CoA stenting are usually reported in small retrospective case series. This systematic review provides an overview of clinical experience with stenting for CoA. Methods and results: A systematic review of the reports published between January 1990 and December 2014 after stenting a CoA was performed with a focus on relief of obstruction and lowering of blood pressure. Study and patient characteristics were extracted, as well as pre- and post-stenting aortic diameter in mm, systolic pressure gradient (SPG) and pre- and post-stenting systolic blood pressure (mmHg), periprocedural and follow-up complications. Forty-five articles met the inclusion criteria. Three outcomes were extracted from the articles - aortic diameter, systolic pressure gradient and blood pressure. Diameter increased from 6.4 mm (5.6, 7.3) to 15.1 mm (14.5, 15.7), pressure gradients decreased from 40 mmHg (35, 42) to 4 mmHg (3, 5) and systolic blood pressure decreased from 153 mmHg (148, 158) to 132 mmHg (127, 136). Stent migration was the most common periprocedural complication (2.4%), and mortality was low (0.4%). Conclusions: Stenting is an effective treatment with regard to immediate relief of obstruction and direct lowering effect on blood pressure. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding late effectiveness concerning durable blood pressure lowering, and limited information on periprocedural and late complications. This observation calls for a systematic and longer prospective follow-up of patients after CoA stenting.

Coarctation of the aorta, Congenital heart disease, Stent, Systematic review
dx.doi.org/10.4244/EIJV11I6A133, hdl.handle.net/1765/90942
EuroIntervention
Department of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

Hartman, E.M.J, Groenendijk, I.M, Heuvelman, H.M, Roos-Hesselink, J.W, Takkenberg, J.J.M, & Witsenburg, M. (2015). The effectiveness of stenting of coarctation of the aorta: A systematic review. EuroIntervention (Vol. 11, pp. 660–668). doi:10.4244/EIJV11I6A133