ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Outcomes after using cerebral embolic protection devices during transcatheter aortic valve replacement: an updated meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cerebral embolic protection (CEP) devices have been developed to reduce periprocedural embolization through transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), yet their clinical benefit remains uncertain. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of CEP devices during TAVR using evidence restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched through July 2025 for RCTs comparing CEP devices vs. no protection in patients undergoing TAVR. The primary outcome was the all-cause stroke. Random-effects model was applied for the primary analysis. Results: Nine RCTs comprising 11,696 patients (6,000 patients in CEP, 5,696 patients in control) were analyzed. CEP use did not significantly reduce the overall risk of all-cause stroke Conclusions: Among patients undergoing TAVR, CEP devices could not reduce the risk of stroke compared with the control group. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251114450, CRD420251114450.
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.