SynthesisJournal of the American Heart Association2024
Role of Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: An Updated Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Pooled it
- Cerebral embolic protection devices in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Indian heart journalPooled it
- The Utility of Cerebral Protection Devices in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Meta-analysis.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Review
- What Are SAVR Indications in the TAVI Era?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation and Replacement: The Latest Advances and Prospects.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Neuroprotection Devices in Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories: Does It Sufficiently Protect Our Patients?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- The Impact of Aortic Arch Morphology on Periprocedural Stroke in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Sex Differences in Stroke Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and the Role of Embolic Protection Devices in Women.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2025Review
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 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCerebral 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
resultsA 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.
conclusionsThe 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.
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.