Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40910674›Full record

SynthesisCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions2025

Efficacy of Cerebral Embolic Protection Device in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Sufyan Shahid, Mahrosh Kasbati, Samer Osama Adawi, Saniya Ishtiaq, Muhammad Osama, Syed Mohamin Abbas Shah, Muneeb Saifullah, Syed Ali, Raheel Ahmed, Iftikhar Ali Ch and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Efficacy of Cerebral Embolic Protection Device in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Sufyan ShahidKhawaja Muhammad Safdar Medical College, Sialkot, Pakistan.ORCID 0009-0002-9236-0822
Mahrosh KasbatiDow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.ORCID 0009-0003-1514-1893
Samer Osama AdawiAl-Quds University, Jerusalem, Palestine.ORCID 0000-0002-1227-5840
Saniya IshtiaqRawalpindi Medical University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.ORCID 0009-0000-2005-9059
Muhammad OsamaHayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0003-0197-4264
Syed Mohamin Abbas ShahKing Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan.ORCID 0009-0001-2597-9265
Muneeb SaifullahKing Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan.ORCID 0009-0003-8047-7270
Syed AliOklahoma Heart Hospital, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-0539-1868
Raheel AhmedNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Iftikhar Ali ChSouth Oklahoma Heart Research, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
Salman KhalidOklahoma Heart Hospital, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
Naeem Khan TahirkheliOklahoma Heart Hospital, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.

Funding

The authors received no specific funding for this work.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is widely used to treat severe aortic stenosis; however, periprocedural stroke remains a significant concern. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate whether the use of cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPDs) during TAVR reduces the risk of stroke and other complications. To conduct a network meta-analysis of relevant trials to assess the efficacy of CEPDs currently used in TAVR. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were systematically searched through April 2025 to identify studies comparing TAVR performed with and without CEPDs. Primary outcomes included stroke, all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and major vascular complications. Data were analyzed using RevMan (Version 5.4.1). A random-effects model was used for all analyses, applying the Mantel-Haenszel method for dichotomous outcomes, reported as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Funnel plots were used to assess publication bias. Twenty-four studies (9 randomized controlled trials and 15 observational studies), including a total of 437,487 patients (59,274 with CEPD and 384,213 without), were included in the analysis. The mean patient age was 80 years, and 46.4% were female. Compared to patients undergoing TAVR without protection, those receiving CEPDs had significantly lower risks of stroke (RR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.60-0.82; p < 0.0001), all-cause mortality (RR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.50-0.93; p = 0.02), disabling stroke (RR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.26-0.75; p = 0.003), acute kidney injury (RR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.79-0.89; p < 0.00001), and 30-day readmission (RR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.60-0.95; p = 0.02). A reduction in major bleeding was also observed (RR = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.59-1.17), although this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.29). No significant differences were found between groups in terms of major vascular complications, transient ischemic attack (TIA), new pacemaker implantation, or delirium. The use of CEPDs during TAVR is associated with reduced risks of stroke, disabling stroke, acute kidney injury, and 30-day readmission. However, discrepancies between randomized and observational studies warrant cautious interpretation. Further research is needed to clarify the benefits and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CEPD implementation in routine clinical practice.

Indexed as

Aortic ValveAortic Valve StenosisEmbolic Protection DevicesIntracranial EmbolismStrokeTranscatheter Aortic Valve ReplacementAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleProtective FactorsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeCEPDcerebral embolic protection deviceembolic eventsmeta‐analysisneurological complicationsstroke preventionsystematic reviewTAVRtranscatheter aortic valve replacement

Identifiers

PMID40910674
PMCPMC12584568

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.