ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2019
Cerebral protection devices for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: An Updated Meta-Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Pooled it
- Management of aortic stenosis: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and recommendations.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2021Pooled it
- Neuroprotection Devices in Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories: Does It Sufficiently Protect Our Patients?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Fighting Cardiac Thromboembolism during Transcatheter Procedures: An Update on the Use of Cerebral Protection Devices in Cath Labs and EP Labs.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices: Current State of the Art.US cardiology · 2023Review
- Changes in demographics, treatment and outcomes in a consecutive cohort who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation between 2005 and 2020.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2022Article
- Embolic Protection with the TriGuard 3 System in Nonagenarian Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aortic stenosis is the most prevalent primary valve disease in developed countries. Its prevalence is increasing due to population aging. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a sterling therapy for symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis and high or intermediate surgery risk. The number of procedures has increased exponentially expanding to younger and lower risk patients. Despite new-generation TAVR devices and enhanced operator skills, cerebrovascular events (CVEs) carry on being one of the most severe complications, increasing morbi-mortality. CVE might be under reported because there are few studies with rigorous neurological clinical assessment. Several imaging studies show most of CVE after TAVR has a probable embolic etiology. The risk of CVE ranges from 2.7% to 5.5% at 30 days. As TAVR expands to younger and lower risk patients, the prevention of stroke plays an increasingly important role. Cerebral protection devices (CPD) were designed to reduce the risk of CVE during TAVR. This review describes the scientific evidence on CVE after TAVR and summarizes the performance and results of the main CPDs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.