ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes2025
Routine Cerebral Embolic Protection During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes, 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
The risk of periprocedural stroke with TAVR remains a significant concern. Cerebral embolic protection (CEP) devices have been developed to mitigate this risk, but their clinical benefit remains uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of routine CEP use during TAVR through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted from inception to May 22, 2025, to identify RCTs comparing CEP versus standard care during TAVR. The primary outcome was stroke (including disabling and nondisabling strokes). Secondary outcomes included disabling stroke, new ischemic lesions on post-TAVR brain magnetic resonance imaging, all-cause mortality, major vascular complications, life-threatening bleeding, and acute kidney injury. Risk ratios (RRs) were pooled using a random-effects model. A total of 9 RCTs encompassing 11,641 patients (5970 with CEP and 5671 without) were included. CEP use did not significantly reduce the risk of stroke (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.73-1.14;
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.