ArticleCureus2026
Cerebrovascular Accident Risk and Guidewire Choice in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Procedure.
Article in Cureus, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become an established minimally invasive treatment for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS), particularly those at high surgical risk. One procedural step involves advancing a guidewire across the aortic valve (AV) into the left ventricle (LV). Prior studies have shown that manipulation of calcified structures, vascular plaque embolization, and prolonged procedural time may increase the risk of cerebrovascular accidents (CVA) associated with TAVR. This study aimed to compare the incidence of CVA and other periprocedural outcomes based on the type of guidewire used to cross the AV during TAVR.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of 537 patients who had undergone TAVR for symptomatic severe AS between July 2018 and July 2023 at our healthcare facility. Patients were divided into two groups: those receiving a 0.035" hydrophilic guidewire (n = 253) versus a 0.038" fiber-core straight TEF guidewire (n = 284) for AV crossing. Baseline demographics, procedural characteristics, and outcomes were compared between groups. The primary outcomes were CVA within 24 hours and within one month. Secondary outcomes included permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, myocardial infarction (MI), and all-cause mortality at one month.
resultsThere were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of CVA between the hydrophilic and fiber-core wire groups at 24 hours (p = 0.71) or one month (p = 0.43). Similarly, there were no significant differences in PPM implantation at 24-48 hours (p = 0.23) or at one month (p = 0.42), in one-month all-cause mortality (p = 0.29), or in MI within one month (p = 1.00).
conclusionThe type of guidewire used to cross the AV during TAVR, whether 0.035" hydrophilic or 0.038" fiber-core straight TEF, was not associated with significant differences in the incidence of CVA or other major adverse clinical outcomes. These findings suggest that guidewire selection for AV crossing may be based on operator preference without compromising cerebrovascular safety.
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.