Key result
Cerebral embolic protection devices used during transcatheter aortic valve implantation did not significantly reduce the risk of all-cause stroke compared to no protection (RR 0.92).
Why the study?
Periprocedural cerebral embolisation remains a major complication during TAVI, and the clinical efficacy of cerebral embolic protection devices to mitigate this risk remains uncertain.
Does the use of cerebral embolic protection devices reduce all-cause stroke in patients undergoing TAVI?
Meta-Analysis (n=11,611)
Does the use of cerebral embolic protection devices reduce all-cause stroke in patients undergoing TAVI?
Relative Risk: 0.92 (95% CI 0.74–1.15)
Absolute Event Rate: 2.71% vs 2.66%
p-value: p=0.48
The routine use of cerebral embolic protection devices during TAVI does not significantly reduce the risk of stroke, mortality, or other adverse clinical outcomes.
Introduction Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a standard treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis. However, periprocedural cerebral embolisation remains a major complication, contributing to the risk of stroke and silent cerebral infarctions. Cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPDs) have been developed to mitigate this risk, but their clinical efficacy remains uncertain. Methods A systematic search of the PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library databases was conducted for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CEPD use versus no CEPD in patients undergoing TAVI, from inception to 1 May 2025. The primary outcome was all-cause stroke. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) were pooled using a random-effects model. Results Eight RCTs comprising 11,611 patients (5956 with CEPD and 5655 without CEPD) were included. CEPD use was not associated with a significant reduction in all-cause stroke (RR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.74–1.15), disabling stroke (RR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.57–1.12), or non-disabling stroke (RR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.58–1.16). No significant differences were observed in all-cause mortality (RR = 1.09, p = 0.70), NIHSS worsening (RR = 1.21, p = 0.41), new ischaemic lesions (RR = 0.99, p = 0.70), or lesion volume on DW-MRI (MD = –78.89 mm³, p = 0.10). Similarly, no significant differences were found in the incidence of acute kidney injury or vascular complications (p > 0.05). Conclusions The use of CEPDs during TAVI was not associated with a reduction in stroke, mortality, or other adverse clinical outcomes. Further research may be needed to identify subgroups who could benefit from CEPD use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmad et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Severe aortic stenosis (n=11,611). Cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPD) vs. No CEPD was evaluated on All-cause stroke (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74-1.15, p=0.48). Cerebral embolic protection devices used during transcatheter aortic valve implantation did not significantly reduce the risk of all-cause stroke compared to no protection (RR 0.92).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: