Safety and efficacy of cerebral embolic protection devices for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: An updated meta‐analysis

Author:

Shrestha Dhan Bahadur1ORCID,Shtembari Jurgen1,Lamichhane Sandesh2,Baniya Abinash2ORCID,Shahi Manoj2ORCID,Dhungel Swati3,Pant Kailash4,Sutton Nadia R.56,Villablanca Pedro7,Mungee Sudhir4

Affiliation:

1. Department of Internal Medicine Mount Sinai Hospital Chicago Illinois USA

2. Department of Internal Medicine Chitwan Medical College Teaching Hospital Bharatpur Nepal

3. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital of Cook County Chicago Illinois USA

4. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine University of Illinois College of Medicine, OSF Healthcare Peoria Illinois USA

5. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine Vanderbilt University Medical Center Nashville Tennessee USA

6. Department of Biomedical Engineering Vanderbilt University Nashville Tennessee USA

7. Division of Interventional Cardiology and Structural Heart Disease, Department of Internal Medicine The Center for Structural Heart Disease Henry Ford Hospital Detroit Michigan USA

Abstract

AbstractBackground and AimsCerebral embolic protection (CEP) devices are employed to capture embolic debris and reduce the risk of stroke during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Evidence is mixed regarding the safety and efficacy of CEP. We aimed to summarize the safety and effectiveness of CEP use during TAVR.MethodsElectronic databases, including PubMed, PubMed Central, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Embase, were searched using relevant search terms for articles relating to CEP. All relevant data from 20 studies were extracted into a standardized form. Statistical analyses were performed using Revman 5.4. Odds ratio (OR) or mean differences (MDs) were used to estimate the desired outcome with a 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsTwenty studies (eight randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) involving 210,871 patients (19,261 in the CEP group and 191,610 in TAVR without the CEP group) were included. The use of CEP was associated with a lower odds of 30‐day mortality by 39% (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.53–0.70) and stroke by 31% (OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.52–0.92). Comparing devices, benefit in terms of mortality and stroke was observed with the use of the Sentinel device (Boston Scientific), but not among other devices. No differences were observed in the outcomes of acute kidney injury, major or life‐threatening bleeding events, or major vascular complications between groups. When only RCTs were included, there were no observed differences in the primary or secondary outcomes for CEP versus no CEP use during TAVR.ConclusionsThe totality of evidence suggests a net benefit for the use of CEP, weighted by studies in which the Sentinal device was used. However, given the RCT subanalysis, additional evidence is needed to identify patients at the highest risk of stroke for optimal decision‐making.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

General Medicine

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3