ArticleScientific reports2025
Early single center experience with cerebral embolic protection in high-risk cardiac surgery.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cerebral embolic protection (CEP) devices may be a tool to mitigate the perioperative stroke risk in cardiac surgery. However, studies are limited. The aim of this study was to analyze the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of CEP use in high-risk cardiac surgery. Ten high-risk surgical candidates with native valvular heart disease (mainly mitral with severe MAC) or failed bioprosthesis were consecutively enrolled between March 2023 and April 2024. All participants underwent open-heart surgery with use of Sentinel CEP. The CEP device was successfully deployed and recaptured in all cases without any Sentinel-related complications reported. Clearly visible, large deposits of calcium debris were captured. No significant neurological deficits (above mild neurological dysfunction; NIHSS > 5) were reported in any of the patients. Nine patients suffered postprocedural complications ranging from new-onset left bundle branch block to cardiogenic shock. One individual gradually deteriorated and ultimately died. Importantly, her neurological status remained intact throughout the course of the hospitalization. All other patients were discharged in good standing. The current study extends the early experience demonstrating the feasibility and safety of Sentinel CEP in high-risk cardiac surgery. Particularly in the highest-risk patient sub-sets CEP devices may offer advantages reducing the risk of periprocedural episodes and improving 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.