Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37404451›Full record

ArticleHealth science reports2023

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

Dhan Bahadur Shrestha, Jurgen Shtembari, Sandesh Lamichhane, Abinash Baniya, Manoj Shahi, Swati Dhungel, Kailash Pant, Nadia R Sutton, Pedro Villablanca, Sudhir Mungee

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health science reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Dhan Bahadur ShresthaDepartment of Internal Medicine Mount Sinai Hospital Chicago Illinois USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8121-083X
Jurgen ShtembariDepartment of Internal Medicine Mount Sinai Hospital Chicago Illinois USA.
Sandesh LamichhaneDepartment of Internal Medicine Chitwan Medical College Teaching Hospital Bharatpur Nepal.
Abinash BaniyaDepartment of Internal Medicine Chitwan Medical College Teaching Hospital Bharatpur Nepal.ORCID 0000-0003-0558-6074
Manoj ShahiDepartment of Internal Medicine Chitwan Medical College Teaching Hospital Bharatpur Nepal.ORCID 0000-0002-4382-5155
Swati DhungelDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital of Cook County Chicago Illinois USA.
Kailash PantDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine University of Illinois College of Medicine, OSF Healthcare Peoria Illinois USA.
Nadia R SuttonDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine Vanderbilt University Medical Center Nashville Tennessee USA.
Pedro VillablancaDivision of Interventional Cardiology and Structural Heart Disease, Department of Internal Medicine The Center for Structural Heart Disease Henry Ford Hospital Detroit Michigan USA.
Sudhir MungeeDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine University of Illinois College of Medicine, OSF Healthcare Peoria Illinois USA.
Chitwan Medical College · NPIllinois College · USMount Sinai Hospital · USHenry Ford Hospital · USJohn H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County · USVanderbilt University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: Cerebral 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. Methods: Electronic 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). Results: Twenty 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. Conclusions: The 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.

Indexed as

cerebral embolic protection devicesstroketranscatheter aortic valve replacement

Identifiers

PMID37404451
PMCPMC10314975
OpenAlexW4382894499

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.