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.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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 · 2025Pooled it
- Imaging and Clinical Outcomes with Sentinel Cerebral Embolic Protection During TAVR: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials with Trial Sequential Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- The association of cerebral embolic protection during transcatheter aortic valve replacement with periprocedural neurological outcomes.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
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
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.