Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41919027›Full record

ReviewJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions2026

The Utility of Cerebral Protection Devices in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Meta-analysis.

Tomonari M Shimoda, Yosuke Sakurai, Minami Watanabe, Shinichi Fukuhara, Yujiro Yokoyama, Hiroki A Ueyama, Roger J Laham, Michel Pompeu Sá, Kaveh Hosseini, Tsuyoshi Kaneko and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Tomonari M ShimodaUnited States Naval Hospital Yokosuka, Yokosuka, Japan.
Yosuke SakuraiDivision of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Minami WatanabeDepartment of Surgery, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pennsylvania.
Shinichi FukuharaDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Yujiro YokoyamaDivision of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Hiroki A UeyamaDivision of Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Roger J LahamDivision of Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Michel Pompeu SáDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, Florida.
Kaveh HosseiniCardiovascular Diseases Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Tsuyoshi KanekoDivision of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Toshiki KunoDivision of Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cerebral embolic protection (CEP) devices are designed to reduce procedure-related stroke during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). In light of recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we performed an updated meta-analysis to evaluate their impact on stroke and mortality. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central through June 2025 for RCTs comparing TAVR with or without the CEP devices. Outcomes of interest included all stroke, disabling stroke, and all-cause mortality. Data were extracted and pooled using a random-effects frequentist meta-analysis. In addition, a Bayesian meta-analysis was performed with both vague and informative priors to evaluate the probability of a clinically meaningful reduction in stroke. Results: Eight RCTs with 11,632 patients (CEP group = 5969; control group = 5663) were included. We found no difference in all strokes between the groups (risk ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.74-1.15), nor in disabling stroke or all-cause mortality. In the Bayesian meta-analysis for all strokes using a vague prior, posterior probabilities that the risk ratio was <1, <0.9, and <0.67 were 71.9%, 35.6%, and 0.1%, respectively. For disabling stroke, the probabilities were 89.6%, 73.3%, and 12.1%, respectively. With an informative prior, posterior probabilities for all strokes were 95.9%, 39.0%, and 0% and the probabilities for disabling strokes were 98.3%, 73.8%, and 0%, respectively. Conclusions: CEP devices did not significantly reduce stroke or mortality during TAVR, and the probability of a clinically meaningful benefit was low. Larger studies with extended follow-up are warranted to clarify their role in contemporary practice.

Indexed as

Bayesian inferencecerebral embolic protectionmeta-analysisstroketranscatheter aortic valve replacement

Identifiers

PMID41919027
PMCPMC13033800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.