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.
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.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.