Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37520141›Full record

ArticleStructural heart : the journal of the Heart Team2023

An Updated Meta-Analysis on Cerebral Embolic Protection in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Intervention Stratified by Baseline Surgical Risk and Device Type.

Safi U Khan, Salman Zahid, Mohamad A Alkhouli, Usman Ali Akbar, Syed Zaid, Hassaan B Arshad, Stephen H Little, Michael J Reardon, Neal S Kleiman, Sachin S Goel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. 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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Safi U KhanDepartment of Cardiology, Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart & Vascular Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Salman ZahidSands-Constellation Heart Institute, Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, New York, USA.
Mohamad A AlkhouliDivision of Interventional Cardiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Usman Ali AkbarDepartment of Medicine, North Shore University Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Syed ZaidDepartment of Cardiology, Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart & Vascular Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Hassaan B ArshadDepartment of Cardiology, Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart & Vascular Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Stephen H LittleDepartment of Cardiology, Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart & Vascular Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Michael J ReardonDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart & Vascular Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Neal S KleimanDepartment of Cardiology, Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart & Vascular Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Sachin S GoelDepartment of Cardiology, Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart & Vascular Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Houston Methodist · USMayo Clinic · USNorth Shore University Hospital · USRochester General Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve intervention (TAVI) can lead to the embolization of debris. Capturing the debris by cerebral embolic protection (CEP) devices may reduce the risk of stroke. New evidence has allowed us to examine the effects of CEP in patients undergoing TAVI. We aimed to assess the effects of CEP overall and stratified by the device used (SENTINEL or TriGuard) and the surgical risk of the patients. Methods: We selected randomized controlled trials using electronic databases through September 17, 2022. We estimated random-effects risk ratios (RR) with (95% confidence interval) and calculated absolute risk differences at 30 days across baseline surgical risks derived from the TAVI trials for any stroke (disabling and nondisabling) and all-cause mortality. Results: Among 6 trials (n = 3921), CEP vs. control did not reduce any stroke [RR: 0.95 (0.50-1.81)], disabling [RR: 0.75 (0.18-3.16)] or nondisabling [RR: 0.99 (0.65-1.49)] strokes, or all-cause mortality [RR: 1.23 (0.55-2.77)]. However, when analyzed by device, SENTINEL reduced disabling stroke [RR: 0.46 (0.22-0.95)], translating into 6 fewer per 1000 in high-risk, 3 fewer per 1000 in intermediate-risk, and 1 fewer per 1000 in low surgical-risk patients. CEP vs. control did not reduce the risk of any bleeding [RR: 1.03 (0.44-2.40)], major vascular complications [RR: 1.41 (0.57-3.48)], or acute kidney injury [RR: 1.36 (0.57-3.28)]. Conclusions: This updated meta-analysis showed that SENTINEL CEP might reduce disabling stroke in patients undergoing TAVI. Patients with high and intermediate surgical risks were most likely to derive benefits.

Indexed as

Cerebral embolic protectionStrokeTranscatheter aortic valve intervention

Identifiers

PMID37520141
PMCPMC10382981
OpenAlexW4362603288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.