SynthesisClinical cardiology2026
Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices (CEPDs) During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI): A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Clinical cardiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTranscatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is associated with procedure-related stroke. Cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPDs) are designed to reduce the risk of embolic debris reaching the brain; however, the evidence supporting their efficacy remains controversial. We aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CEPDs in patients undergoing TAVI.
methodsMajor databases were systematically searched up to April 2025. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included and critically appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB-2) tool. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with the 95% confidence intervals for the outcomes, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted to reduce the risk of false-positive results due to random errors.
resultsEight RCTs (11,589 patients) were analyzed. No significant difference was observed in overall stroke incidence between CEPD and control groups (0.92 (95% CI: 0.75-1.14; p = 0.40, I
conclusionCEPDs show no significant reduction in overall, disabling, or non-disabling stroke, nor in all-cause mortality post-TAVI.
trial registrationThis meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO. No.: CRD420251026208.
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.