ReviewMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)2025
Neuroprotection Devices in Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories: Does It Sufficiently Protect Our Patients?
Review in Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stroke is a devastating complication of cardiovascular interventions. Intraprocedural stroke is a well-documented and feared risk of cardiac percutaneous transcatheter procedures. If clinically significant strokes are absent, silent strokes remain the next in line to pose large concerns related to future cognitive decline, stroke risk, and overall increased morbidity and mortality. Cerebral protection devices (CPD) developed overtime aim to neutralize this risk through either a capture-based filter or a deflector mechanism. Many CPDs exist currently, each one unique, with varying degrees of evidence. The adoption of CPDs has allowed cardiac percutaneous transcatheter procedures to be carried out in patients with high thromboembolic risks who may have historically been discommended. Though skewed towards certain devices and transcatheter procedures, a large body of evidence is still present across other devices and procedures. This review will discuss clinical importance and respective stroke rates, updated evidence surrounding CPDs, differing opinions across types of CPDs, cost benefits, and what lies ahead for CPDs within the realm of procedures undertaken in cardiac catheterization laboratories.
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.