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

Author:

Kaur Arpanjeet1,Dhaliwal Arshdeep S.2,Sohal Sumit3ORCID,Gwon Yeongjin4ORCID,Gupta Soumya1ORCID,Bhatia Kirtipal5ORCID,Dominguez Abel Casso5ORCID,Basman Craig6,Tamis‐Holland Jacqueline7ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Medicine Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Morningside/West‐ New York New York NY

2. Population Health Science and Policy Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai‐ New York New York NY

3. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine Newark Beth Israel Medical Center‐ Newark Newark NJ

4. Department of Biostatistics University of Nebraska Medical Center Omaha NE

5. Division of Cardiology Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Morningside‐ New York New York NY

6. Division of Cardiology Lenox Hill Hospital‐ New York New York NY

7. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine Cleveland Clinic Main Campus Cleveland OH

Abstract

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.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

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