ArticleAsiaIntervention2024
Safety and efficacy of cerebral embolic protection in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: an updated meta-analysis.
Article in AsiaIntervention, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Embolic Protection Devices in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Performance Assessment of an Electrostatic Filter-Diverter Stent Cerebrovascular Protection Device: Evaluation of a Range of Potential Electrostatic Fields Focusing on Small Particles.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of cerebral embolic protection devices during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) reveals conflicting data. Aims: This updated meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the SENTINEL Cerebral Protection System. Methods: A literature search for relevant studies up to September 2022 was performed. Study outcomes were divided based on time period - overall (up to 30 days) and short (≤7 days). The outcomes studied include stroke (disabling, non-disabling), mortality, neuroimaging findings, transient ischaemic attack, acute kidney injury and major vascular and bleeding complications. Results: A total of 15 studies involving 294,134 patients were included. Regarding overall outcomes, significant reductions were noted for mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-0.88; p=0.008), all stroke (OR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46-0.88; p=0.006) and disabling stroke (OR 0.42, 95% CI: 0.23-0.74; p=0.003) using the SENTINEL device. No significant differences were noted for other outcomes. There was significant heterogeneity across the studies for mortality (p=0.013) and all stroke (p=0.003). Including only randomised data (n=4), there was only significant reduction in the incidence of disabling stroke (OR 0.39, 95% CI: 0.17-0.89; p=0.026) in the SENTINEL group. In studies reporting ≤7-day outcomes (n=8), use of the SENTINEL device demonstrated significantly lower rates of all stroke (p<0.001), disabling stroke (p<0.001) and major bleeding complications (p=0.02). No differences in neuroimaging outcomes were noted. Conclusions: In this updated meta-analysis, use of the SENTINEL Cerebral Protection System was associated with lower rates of mortality, all stroke and disabling stroke, although significant heterogeneity was noted for mortality and all stroke. Including exclusively randomised data, there was only significant reduction in the incidence of disabling stroke. No significant adverse outcomes with device use were noted.
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.