ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2025
Effectiveness of cerebral embolic protection during transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Outcomes after using cerebral embolic protection devices during transcatheter aortic valve replacement: an updated meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cerebral embolism remains a concern during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Cerebral embolic protection (CEP) devices have been developed to mitigate this risk, but their clinical benefit remains unclear. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and Results: Eight trials comprising 11,625 patients (group CEP, n = 5,843 patients; group NCEP, n = 5,782 patients, 57.3 % male, 81.5 mean age years) were included. No significant differences were found for primary endpoint, overall stroke (RR 1.03, 95 % CI 0.82-1.29), and secondary outcomes between CEP and non-CEP groups at 30 days follow-up. Complications related to CEP access were minimal, 1.1 % (95 % CI: -0.6 to 2.8). Conclusions: CEP devices do not significantly reduce short-term stroke or major complications after TAVR. However, given the prevalence of silent cerebral ischemia, further studies are needed to assess long-term neurological outcomes and identify high-risk subgroups who may benefit.
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.