Role of Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: An Updated Meta-Analysis

被引:3
|
作者
Kaur, Arpanjeet [2 ]
Dhaliwal, Arshdeep S. [3 ]
Sohal, Sumit [4 ]
Gwon, Yeongjin [5 ]
Gupta, Soumya [2 ]
Bhatia, Kirtipal [6 ]
Dominguez, Abel Casso [6 ]
Basman, Craig [7 ]
Tamis-Holland, Jacqueline [1 ,8 ]
机构
[1] Cleveland Clin, Dept Cardiovasc Med, Main Campus,9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH 44195 USA
[2] Icahn Sch Med Mt Sinai Morningside West New York, Dept Med, New York, NY USA
[3] Icahn Sch Med Mt Sinai, Populat Hlth Sci & Policy, New York, NY USA
[4] Newark Beth Israel Med Ctr Newark, Div Cardiovasc Med, Newark, NJ USA
[5] Univ Nebraska Med Ctr, Dept Biostat, Omaha, NE USA
[6] Icahn Sch Med Mt Sinai Morningside New York, Div Cardiol, New York, NY USA
[7] Lenox Hill Hosp, Div Cardiol, New York, NY USA
[8] Cleveland Clin, Dept Cardiovasc Med, Main Campus, Cleveland, OH USA
来源
关键词
cerebral embolic protection devices; stroke; transcatheter aortic valve replacement; RANDOMIZED EVALUATION; IMPLANTATION; STENOSIS; LESIONS;
D O I
10.1161/JAHA.123.030587
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background Cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPD) capture embolic material in an attempt to reduce ischemic brain injury during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Prior reports have indicated mixed results regarding the benefits of these devices. With new data emerging, we performed an updated meta-analysis examining the effect of CEPD during transcatheter aortic valve replacement on various clinical, neurological, and safety parameters.Methods and Results A comprehensive review of electronic databases was performed comparing CEPD and no-CEPD in transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Primary clinical outcome was all-cause stroke. Secondary clinical outcomes were disabling stroke and all-cause mortality. Neurological outcomes included worsening of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, Montreal Cognitive Assessment score from baseline at discharge, presence of new ischemic lesions, and total lesion volume on neuroimaging. Safety outcomes included major or minor vascular complications and stage 2 or 3 acute kidney injury. Seven randomized controlled trials with 4016 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was no statistically significant difference in the primary clinical outcome of all-cause stroke; secondary clinical outcomes of disabling stroke, all-cause mortality, neurological outcomes of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score worsening, Montreal Cognitive Assessment worsening, presence of new ischemic lesions, or total lesion volume on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging between CEPD versus control groups. There was no statistically significant difference in major or minor vascular complications or stage 2 or 3 acute kidney injury between the groups.Conclusions The use of CEPD in transcatheter aortic valve replacement was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of clinical, neurological, and safety outcomes.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices for Prevention of Post-Procedural Ischemic Stroke With Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Mandava, Sri
    Ayyalu, Tanesh
    Charles, Fred
    Gade, Akhil
    Salagundla, Nethuja
    Thambidorai, Senthil
    Aragon, Joseph
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2022, 80 (12) : B132 - B132
  • [42] Cerebral protection devices for transcatheter aortic valve replacement
    Cubero-Gallego, Hector
    Pascual, Isaac
    Rozado, Jose
    Ayesta, Ana
    Hernandez-Vaquero, Daniel
    Diaz, Rocio
    Alperi, Alberto
    Avanzas, Pablo
    Moris, Cesar
    ANNALS OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE, 2019, 7 (20)
  • [43] Silent cerebral injury after transcatheter aortic valve implantation and the preventive role of embolic protection devices: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Pagnesi, Matteo
    Martino, Enrico A.
    Chiarito, Mauro
    Mangieri, Antonio
    Jabbour, Richard J.
    Van Mieghem, Nicolas M.
    Kodali, Susheel K.
    Godino, Cosmo
    Landoni, Giovanni
    Colombo, Antonio
    Latib, Azeem
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2016, 221 : 97 - 106
  • [44] Cerebral protection devices for transcatheter aortic valve replacement
    Jobanputra, Yash
    Jones, Brandon M.
    Mohananey, Divyanshu
    Fatima, Benish
    Kandregula, Krishna
    Kapadia, Samir R.
    EXPERT REVIEW OF MEDICAL DEVICES, 2017, 14 (07) : 529 - 543
  • [45] Stroke reduction by cerebral embolic protection devices in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis
    Heuts, Samuel
    Gabrio, Andrea
    Veenstra, Leo
    Maesen, Bart
    Kats, Suzanne
    Maessen, Jos G.
    Walton, Antony S.
    Nanayakkara, Shane
    Lansky, Alexandra J.
    van 't Hof, Arnoud W. J.
    Vriesendorp, Pieter A.
    HEART, 2024, 110 (11) : 757 - 765
  • [46] Cerebral Embolic Protection in Valve-inValve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
    Shekhar, Shashank
    Krishnaswamy, Amar
    Reed, Grant
    Puri, Rishi
    Yun, James
    Kapadia, Samir
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2024, 216 : 110 - 111
  • [47] Editorial commentary: Use of cerebral embolic protection devices during transcatheter aortic valve replacement
    Panchal, Hemang B.
    Paul, Timir K.
    TRENDS IN CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE, 2018, 28 (06) : 419 - 420
  • [48] Cerebral embolic protection in transcatheter aortic valve replacement with bicuspid aortic stenosis
    Gupta, A.
    Koren, O.
    Patel, V.
    Nagasaka, T.
    Patel, D.
    Golwala, K.
    Chakravarty, T.
    Al-Jilaihawi, H.
    Nakamura, M.
    Makkar, R.
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2023, 44
  • [49] Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Review of the Literature and Future Perspectives
    Ng, Spencer
    Cunningham, Taylor
    Vavalle, John P.
    CURRENT CARDIOLOGY REPORTS, 2024, 26 (05) : 339 - 347
  • [50] Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement-Effective in Stroke Prevention?
    Khera, Rohan
    Girotra, Saket
    JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2020, 180 (05) : 785 - +