Key result
Cerebral embolic protection during transfemoral TAVI did not reduce the risk of all stroke compared to TAVI without protection (RR 0.94; 95% CrI 0.72-1.25).
Why the study?
The authors sought to integrate the latest RCTs on cerebral embolic protection during TAVI into existing evidence to provide a definite answer regarding its clinical effectiveness.
Does cerebral embolic protection reduce all stroke in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI?
Meta-Analysis (n=11,590)
Does cerebral embolic protection reduce all stroke in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Routine use of current-generation cerebral embolic protection devices during TAVI is ineffective in reducing periprocedural stroke risk to a clinically relevant degree.
OBJECTIVES: This updated hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis aims to integrate the latest randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of cerebral embolic protection (CEP) in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) into previously available data, providing a definite answer to the clinical effectiveness of CEP in TAVI patients. METHODS: A systematic search was updated on 31 March 2025. RCTs were included when comparing transfemoral TAVI with use of CEP versus transfemoral TAVI without CEP. The primary outcome was all stroke, while the secondary outcome was disabling stroke. A hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis was performed on the (log) relative risk (RR) scale and transformed to absolute risk differences (ARDs) and numbers needed to treat (NNTs). The threshold for clinical relevance was based on published expert consensus and established on 1.1% ARD (NNT 91). RESULTS: The study was updated with one new RCT, totalling a number of eight RCTs (n=11 590, CEP n=5921 patients, control n=5669 patients). The prevalence of all stroke and disabling stroke was 2.9% and 1.4% in the control group. The median RR for all stroke was 0.94 (95% credible interval (CrI) 0.72-1.25), translating to a mean of -0.17% ARD (NNT 588), and a posterior probability of a clinically relevant CEP effect of <1%. The median RR for disabling stroke was 0.76 (95% CrI 0.44-1.23), translating to a mean of -0.36% ARD (NNT 278), and a posterior probability of a clinically relevant CEP effect of <1%. CONCLUSION: Current-generation CEP devices are ineffective in reducing periprocedural TAVI-stroke risk to a clinically relevant degree, rendering future trials with these devices futile. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023407006.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kawczyński et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) (n=11,590). Cerebral embolic protection (CEP) vs. Transfemoral TAVI without CEP was evaluated on All stroke (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72-1.25). Cerebral embolic protection during transfemoral TAVI did not reduce the risk of all stroke compared to TAVI without protection (RR 0.94; 95% CrI 0.72-1.25).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: